factual basis claim in California

2024In California, the trial court must inquire into the factual basis for any negotiated plea. (§ 1192.5, subd. (c); People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1180-1182 .) The requirement exists because the prospect of “substantially reduced punishment” can be such a powerful “motivating factor for a plea” that a negotiated plea “creates an especially high risk the defendant will plead to a crime he or she did not commit and for which no factual basis can be established.” (Id. at p. 1182.) The factual basis requirement thus “helps ensure that the ‘constitutional standards of voluntariness and int

2024Rather, it applies only to conditional pleas. (§ 1192.5, subd. (c); Hoffard, at pp. 1180-1182.) The point of the requirement is that, because the prospect of “substantially reduced punishment” can be such a powerful “motivating factor for a plea,” a negotiated plea “creates an especially high risk the defendant will plead to a crime he or she did not commit and for which no factual basis can be established.” (Hoffard, at p. 1182.) The factual basis requirement thus “helps ensure that the ‘constitutional standards of voluntariness and intelligence are met.’” (People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th

2024In California, the trial court must inquire into the factual basis for any negotiated plea. (§ 1192.5, subd. (c); People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1180-1182 .) The requirement exists because the prospect of “substantially reduced punishment” can be such a powerful “motivating factor for a plea” that a negotiated plea “creates an especially high risk the defendant will plead to a crime he or she did not commit and for which no factual basis can be established.” (Id. at p. 1182.) The factual basis requirement thus “helps ensure that the ‘constitutional standards of voluntariness and int

2024In California, the trial court must inquire into the factual basis for any negotiated plea. (§ 1192.5, subd. (c); People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1180-1182 .) The requirement exists because the prospect of “substantially reduced punishment” can be such a powerful “motivating factor for a plea” that a negotiated plea “creates an especially high risk the defendant will plead to a crime he or she did not commit and for which no factual basis can be established.” (Id. at p. 1182.) The factual basis requirement thus “helps ensure that the ‘constitutional standards of voluntariness and int

2018Although Ditech asserts Randall's allegations on these points were not sufficiently specific, the particularity required of a pleading varies given the parties' relative knowledge of the facts in issue. ( Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714 , 719, 104 Cal.Rptr. 897 .) "[L]ess particularity is required where the defendant may be assumed to possess knowledge of the facts at least equal, if not superior, to that possessed by the plaintiff." ( Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463 , 474, 20 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 370 P.2d 313 .) Ultimately, the complaint is sufficient if " 'the ad

2018Although Ditech asserts Randall's allegations on these points were not sufficiently specific, the particularity required of a pleading varies given the parties' relative knowledge of the facts in issue. ( Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714 , 719, 104 Cal.Rptr. 897 .) "[L]ess particularity is required where the defendant may be assumed to possess knowledge of the facts at least equal, if not superior, to that possessed by the plaintiff." ( Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463 , 474, 20 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 370 P.2d 313 .) Ultimately, the complaint is sufficient if " 'the ad

2026The purpose of the factual basis requirement is to help ensure that the constitutional standards of voluntariness and intelligence are met.” (People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 118 (Palmer).) The trial court can satisfy itself that there is an adequate factual basis “by having the defendant describe the conduct or answer questions, by detailing a factual basis, or by having defense counsel stipulate to a particular document such as the transcript of a preliminary hearing as providing a factual basis for a plea.

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review When a defendant enters a conditional plea of guilty or no contest to a felony charge, the trial court “shall [] cause an inquiry to be made of the defendant to satisfy itself that the plea is freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for the plea.” (§ 1192.5, subd. (c).) “The purpose of the factual basis requirement is to help 5 ensure that the constitutional standards of voluntariness and intelligence are met.” (People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 118 (Palmer), quoting People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 438-439 .) “On a

2021However, the California Supreme Court has held that although “[w]aiver and forfeiture principles are appropriately applied to most kinds of trial error, . . . their application in the present context would be inappropriate, given the prophylactic purpose behind the factual basis requirement . . . .” (People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 116 (Palmer).) Accordingly, we will address McCright’s claim on the merits. 25 that the plea is freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for the plea.” “ ‘The purpose of the requirement is to protect against the situation where the defe

1995“Conducting a factual basis inquiry before accepting or entering judgment on a guilty plea may further important interests,” noted the court. ( 10 Cal.4th at p. 1183 .) The first of these is the constitutional standard that the plea “ ‘ “represents a voluntary and intelligent choice.” ’ ” (Ibid., quoting North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25, 31 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 167-168 , 91 S.Ct. 160 ].) “Although not itself constitutionally compelled, a factual-basis inquiry may help to ensure the constitutional standards of voluntariness and intelligence are met. . . .” ( 10 Cal.4th at p. 1183, fn. 1

2025We are merely concerned with the standards governing accrual of a claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 for purposes of the Government Claims Act. 15. sources open to his investigation … the statute commences to run.’ ” (Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 101 .) Put differently, section 340.5’s one-year period is only triggered once “ ‘the patient’s “reasonably founded suspicions [have been aroused],” and she has actually “become alerted to the necessity for investigation and pursuit of her remedies[ ]” ….’ ” (Artal v. Allen (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 273, 279 ; see

2025We are merely concerned with the standards governing accrual of a claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 for purposes of the Government Claims Act. 15. sources open to his investigation … the statute commences to run.’ ” (Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 101 .) Put differently, section 340.5’s one-year period is only triggered once “ ‘the patient’s “reasonably founded suspicions [have been aroused],” and she has actually “become alerted to the necessity for investigation and pursuit of her remedies[ ]” ….’ ” (Artal v. Allen (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 273, 279 ; see

2020Project CBD also alleged that multiple people became ill after using RSHO due to heavy metals and other toxins based on Cranford's opinion"].) While these allegations were set forth in the general factual allegations of the first amended complaint and were not in any of the enumerated claims, they were sufficient to "apprise[ ]" the Project CBD defendants of "the factual basis of the claim[s]" asserted in the second amended complaint." (Estate of Archer, supra, at p. 245 .) We therefore conclude that the relation-back doctrine applies, such that the Project CBD defendants cannot rely on the st

2020A complaint must contain "[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language." (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) This fact-pleading requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that "as a whole apprise[ ] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim. [Citations.]" (Estate of Archer (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 238, 245 .) used to attack parts of a [single cause of action] as pleaded." (Baral, at pp. 381–382, 393, 384–396.) In defining a claim properly subject to a motion to strike, the Baral court stated that the Legislature "had in mind allegatio

2009(See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 , 960 P.2d 513 ]; Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 684, 690 [121 *1549 Cal.Rptr.2d 333].) A plaintiff need not plead evidentiary facts supporting the allegation of ultimate fact. ( Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 212 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 , 673 P.2d 660 ].) The pleading is adequate so long as it apprises the defendant of the factual basis for the claim. ( Ibid. ; Lim, at p. 690.) Second, the trial court, relying on language from V

2005Pleading requirements and the relation-back doctrine A complaint must contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) This fact-pleading requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that “as a whole apprise[] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim. [Citations.]” (Estate of Archer (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 238, 245 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; see also Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 684, 689-690 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 333 ].) When a complaint complies with the fact-pleading requirem

2015Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1125 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] [a “cause of action is vulnerable to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute only if the protected conduct forms a substantial part of the factual basis for the claim”]; Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1288 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ] [“[Allegations of protected conduct in the original intentional interference claim were not merely incidental to the allegations of unprotected conduct.

2015Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1125 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] [a “cause of action is vulnerable to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute only if the protected conduct forms a substantial part of the factual basis for the claim”]; Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1288 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ] [“[Allegations of protected conduct in the original intentional interference claim were not merely incidental to the allegations of unprotected conduct.

2016“The purpose of the factual basis requirement is to help ensure that the constitutional standards of voluntariness and intelligence are met.” (People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 118 .) In effect, section 1192.5 requires the court to “‘satisfy itself . . . that there is a 13 factual basis for the plea.’” (People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 435 .) The purpose of the inquiry is “to ‘“protect against the situation where the defendant, although he realizes what he has done, is not sufficiently skilled in law to recognize that his acts do not constitute the offense with which he is charged

2004The trial court may cause a factual basis inquiry to be made of the defendant by directly questioning the defendant, or by gamering statements and admissions by his counsel. 5 (Wilkerson, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1576.) When both parties stipulate on the record to a document, such as a police report, the factual basis requirement is met. (.People v. Enright (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 631, 634-635 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 249 ]; Watts, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d at p. 182.) A summary recitation that “ ‘[t]here’s a factual basis,’ ” however, absent any other attempt by the trial court to develop a factual basis,

2024Rather, it applies only to conditional pleas. (§ 1192.5, subd. (c); Hoffard, at pp. 1180-1182.) The point of the requirement is that, because the prospect of “substantially reduced punishment” can be such a powerful “motivating factor for a plea,” a negotiated plea “creates an especially high risk the defendant will plead to a crime he or she did not commit and for which no factual basis can be established.” (Hoffard, at p. 1182.) The factual basis requirement thus “helps ensure that the ‘constitutional standards of voluntariness and intelligence are met.’” (People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th

2014Noting that a claim questioning the factual basis for a plea is “fundamentally equivalent” to an attack on the sufficiency of evidence, the Sixth District in Voit concluded that a guilty plea forecloses appellate review of the factual basis for that plea. ( Voit, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1365-1366.) In contrast, the Third District, in People v. Marlin (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 559, 571-572 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 470 ], characterized the factual basis inquiry as a procedural safeguard and found that a challenge to that procedure was cognizable on appeal.

1995However, a careful reading would seem to limit it to plea bargain situations [citation].” (Id. at p. 533, fn. 2 (conc. opn. of Hopper, J.); see also People v. Watts (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 173, 178 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 496 ] [§ 1192.5 requires a factual-basis inquiry “upon a plea of guilty which is part of a plea bargain” (italics added)]; cf. § 1192.6, subd. (c) [prosecutor must state reasons for recommending punishment on guilty or no contest plea “whether or not that plea is entered pursuant to section 1192.5”].) 10 The Legislature has also required the existence of a factual basis for a plea enter

1995“Conducting a factual basis inquiry before accepting or entering judgment on a guilty plea may further important interests,” noted the court. ( 10 Cal.4th at p. 1183 .) The first of these is the constitutional standard that the plea “ ‘ “represents a voluntary and intelligent choice.” ’ ” (Ibid., quoting North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25, 31 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 167-168 , 91 S.Ct. 160 ].) “Although not itself constitutionally compelled, a factual-basis inquiry may help to ensure the constitutional standards of voluntariness and intelligence are met. . . .” ( 10 Cal.4th at p. 1183, fn. 1

2015Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1125 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] [a “cause of action is vulnerable to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute only if the protected conduct forms a substantial part of the factual basis for the claim”]; Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1288 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ] [“[Allegations of protected conduct in the original intentional interference claim were not merely incidental to the allegations of unprotected conduct.

2015Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1125 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] [a “cause of action is vulnerable to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute only if the protected conduct forms a substantial part of the factual basis for the claim”]; Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1288 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ] [“[Allegations of protected conduct in the original intentional interference claim were not merely incidental to the allegations of unprotected conduct.

2015(Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211-212 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 , 673 P.2d 660 ].) Accordingly, a complaint “is adequate so long as it apprises the defendant of the factual basis for the claim.” (Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1549 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 602 ] (Birke).) Alternatively stated, a complaint must set forth the essential facts of the plaintiff’s case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of the plaintiff’s claim.

2015(Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211-212 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 , 673 P.2d 660 ].) Accordingly, a complaint “is adequate so long as it apprises the defendant of the factual basis for the claim.” (Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1549 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 602 ] (Birke).) Alternatively stated, a complaint must set forth the essential facts of the plaintiff’s case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of the plaintiff’s claim.

2021(Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 774 .) Though it is unusual for a petitioner to make the required showing, we have said consideration of such a claim is ordinarily warranted “where the factual basis for a claim was unknown to the petitioner and he had no reason to believe that the claim might be made” and the claim is “asserted as promptly as reasonably possible.” (Id. at p. 775.) In addition, claims based on a change in the law that is retroactively applicable to final judgments will be considered if promptly asserted and if application of the former rule is shown to have been prejudicial.

2009For example, "where the factual basis for a claim was unknown to the petitioner and he had no reason to believe that the claim might be made, or where the petitioner was unable to present his claim, the court will continue to consider the merits of the claim if asserted as promptly as reasonably possible." ( In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 775 .) Another exception to the general rule that "absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely petitions will be summarily denied," is "petitions whic

2017Such an allegation falls far short of apprising State Farm of the factual basis of their claim.” (Davaloo, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 417 .) The court in Pointe San Diego agreed with the reasoning of Davaloo : “If an original complaint lacks facts sufficient to provide notice to the defendant of the essential nature of the claim, it would defeat this policy to permit the plaintiff to remedy this error by filing a new amended complaint beyond the limitations period.

2011Such an allegation falls far short of apprising State Farm of the factual basis of the claim. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) The Davaloo court made clear that it was basing its holding on the “totality” of the circumstances and was not intending to establish a “bright-line rule as to when a complaint is so deficient to preclude relation back.” (Davaloo, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 417 .) The court also stressed that its decision to strictly enforce the statutory time limit was supported by the policy underlying the Northridge earthquake revival statute: “To allow an insured to file a complaint [on the

2018Although Ditech asserts Randall's allegations on these points were not sufficiently specific, the particularity required of a pleading varies given the parties' relative knowledge of the facts in issue. ( Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714 , 719, 104 Cal.Rptr. 897 .) "[L]ess particularity is required where the defendant may be assumed to possess knowledge of the facts at least equal, if not superior, to that possessed by the plaintiff." ( Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463 , 474, 20 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 370 P.2d 313 .) Ultimately, the complaint is sufficient if " 'the ad

2018Although Ditech asserts Randall's allegations on these points were not sufficiently specific, the particularity required of a pleading varies given the parties' relative knowledge of the facts in issue. ( Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714 , 719, 104 Cal.Rptr. 897 .) "[L]ess particularity is required where the defendant may be assumed to possess knowledge of the facts at least equal, if not superior, to that possessed by the plaintiff." ( Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463 , 474, 20 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 370 P.2d 313 .) Ultimately, the complaint is sufficient if " 'the ad

2021The trial court’s acceptance of the guilty plea, after pursuing an inquiry to satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea, will be reversed only for abuse of discretion.’” ( Palmer, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 118-119.) “A finding of error under this standard will qualify as harmless where the contents of the record support a finding of a factual basis for the conditional plea.” (Holmes, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 443 ; accord, People v. Willard (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1333 .) Here, Langram confirmed that she understood the plea, wanted to accept it, and did not have any questions

2016Defendant asserts that the complaint, by itself, is insufficient to satisfy section 1192.5 because the complaint “is couched largely in the language of the statute, rather than setting forth the facts underlying the charge.” He argues that, pursuant to People v. Willard (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1331 , “[t]his is not enough to satisfy the purpose of the factual basis inquiry, to corroborate what defendant had already admitted by his plea.” However, as the court in People v. Palmer, supra, 58 Cal.4th 110 explained, a trial court is afforded flexibility in establishing a factual basis for the

2016(People v. Rivas-Colon (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 444, 449 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 651 ]; People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 136 [ 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 743 ]; People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879-880 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 ].) Simply alleging that the petitioner “believes” the property was worth $950 or less is not enough, even if the petition is under penalty of perjury. “ ‘An affidavit based on “information and belief’ is hearsay and must be disregarded.’ [Citation.]” (Baustert v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1275, fn. 5 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 ].) Rather, the petitioner m

2016(People v. Rivas-Colon (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 444, 449 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 651 ]; People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, 136 [ 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 743 ]; People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875, 879-880 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 ].) Simply alleging that the petitioner “believes” the property was worth $950 or less is not enough, even if the petition is under penalty of perjury. “ ‘An affidavit based on “information and belief’ is hearsay and must be disregarded.’ [Citation.]” (Baustert v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1275, fn. 5 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 ].) Rather, the petitioner m