Diaz claim in California

2026(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403 ; People v. Oliver, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 480.) We reject Diaz’s claim that her resentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.

2026(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403 ; People v. Oliver, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 480.) We reject Diaz’s claim that her resentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.

2018(See People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1291 .) Accordingly, we do not reach Pantoja’s alternative argument. 60. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661 , quoting Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman); see, e.g., Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 699 ; People v. Lucas, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 249 .) Here, neither jury returned true findings on the gang enhancement allegations.

2018(See People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1291 .) Accordingly, we do not reach Pantoja’s alternative argument. 60. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661 , quoting Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman); see, e.g., Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 699 ; People v. Lucas, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 249 .) Here, neither jury returned true findings on the gang enhancement allegations.

2018(See People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312 , 392-393, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d 708 .) Because defendant would have had no reason to anticipate that the burden was on him to request the instruction, we conclude that the Diaz rule should be applied only prospectively.

2018(See People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312 , 392-393, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d 708 .) Because defendant would have had no reason to anticipate that the burden was on him to request the instruction, we conclude that the Diaz rule should be applied only prospectively.

2018(See People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1291 .) Accordingly, we do not reach Pantoja’s alternative argument. 60. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661 , quoting Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman); see, e.g., Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 699 ; People v. Lucas, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 249 .) Here, neither jury returned true findings on the gang enhancement allegations.

2018(See People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1291 .) Accordingly, we do not reach Pantoja’s alternative argument. 60. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661 , quoting Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman); see, e.g., Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 699 ; People v. Lucas, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 249 .) Here, neither jury returned true findings on the gang enhancement allegations.

2018(See People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1291 .) Accordingly, we do not reach Pantoja’s alternative argument. 60. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661 , quoting Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman); see, e.g., Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 699 ; People v. Lucas, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 249 .) Here, neither jury returned true findings on the gang enhancement allegations.

2018(See People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1291 .) Accordingly, we do not reach Pantoja’s alternative argument. 60. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661 , quoting Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman); see, e.g., Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 699 ; People v. Lucas, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 249 .) Here, neither jury returned true findings on the gang enhancement allegations.

2018“That test requires the People here ‘to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ [Citation.]” (Elizalde, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 542 .) Contrary to Diaz’s claim, the error in admitting a single booking response had no conceivable effect on the jury’s verdicts.

2018“That test requires the People here ‘to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ [Citation.]” (Elizalde, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 542 .) Contrary to Diaz’s claim, the error in admitting a single booking response had no conceivable effect on the jury’s verdicts.

2017Construction, Inc. v. Titan Electric Corp. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474 , 1485, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 .) In this case, however, we will not remand, because doing so would only serve to advance PCM's goal of delaying trial.

2017Construction, Inc. v. Titan Electric Corp. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474 , 1485, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 .) In this case, however, we will not remand, because doing so would only serve to advance PCM's goal of delaying trial.

2014(People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 213 .) Diaz’s claim thus fails.

2014(People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 213 .) Diaz’s claim thus fails.

2025(People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246 .) “The fact that the victim testifies the defendant did not use force or threats does not preclude a finding of duress.” (People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072 .) “Duress can arise from various circumstances, including the relationship between the defendant and the victim and their relative ages and sizes.” (People v. Senior (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 765, 775 .) “ ‘Where the defendant is a family member and the victim is young, . . . the position of dominance and authority of the defendant and his continuous exploitation of the victim’ is rele

2025(People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482 , 514–515.) We “review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331 .) “Reversal . . . is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypotheses whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support’ ” the conviction.

2025(People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246 .) “The fact that the victim testifies the defendant did not use force or threats does not preclude a finding of duress.” (People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072 .) “Duress can arise from various circumstances, including the relationship between the defendant and the victim and their relative ages and sizes.” (People v. Senior (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 765, 775 .) “ ‘Where the defendant is a family member and the victim is young, . . . the position of dominance and authority of the defendant and his continuous exploitation of the victim’ is rele

2025(People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482 , 514–515.) We “review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331 .) “Reversal . . . is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypotheses whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support’ ” the conviction.

2025(People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246 .) “The fact that the victim testifies the defendant did not use force or threats does not preclude a finding of duress.” (People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072 .) “Duress can arise from various circumstances, including the relationship between the defendant and the victim and their relative ages and sizes.” (People v. Senior (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 765, 775 .) “ ‘Where the defendant is a family member and the victim is young, . . . the position of dominance and authority of the defendant and his continuous exploitation of the victim’ is rele

2023(See People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 459 .) D Diaz faults the trial court for giving a jury instruction about witness certainty in assessing eyewitness identification testimony.

2022If I say anything different here that is different from the instructions, follow the written law that you g[o]t.” (See Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 441 ; Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) We therefore reject this claim of error as it is not reasonably likely the jury construed the prosecutor’s statements that bringing a knife to a fist-fight precluded the jury from considering Diaz’s claim he acted in lawful self- defense.

2022If I say anything different here that is different from the instructions, follow the written law that you g[o]t.” (See Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 441 ; Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) We therefore reject this claim of error as it is not reasonably likely the jury construed the prosecutor’s statements that bringing a knife to a fist-fight precluded the jury from considering Diaz’s claim he acted in lawful self- defense.

2022If I say anything different here that is different from the instructions, follow the written law that you g[o]t.” (See Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 441 ; Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) We therefore reject this claim of error as it is not reasonably likely the jury construed the prosecutor’s statements that bringing a knife to a fist-fight precluded the jury from considering Diaz’s claim he acted in lawful self- defense.

2022(See Shazier, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 127 ; San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 665-666.) Diaz also contends the prosecutor misstated the law when arguing whose version of events the jury should believe: “So you’re left with, do I believe [James], do I believe [April], do I believe my own eyes when I see the 22 cut, the ditched knife, the running away from police?

2022(See Shazier, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 127 ; San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 665-666.) Diaz also contends the prosecutor misstated the law when arguing whose version of events the jury should believe: “So you’re left with, do I believe [James], do I believe [April], do I believe my own eyes when I see the 22 cut, the ditched knife, the running away from police?

2015The trial court's discretion to strike a prior felony conviction in furtherance of justice is limited and "must proceed in strict compliance with section 1385[ subdivision ](a)." (Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530 .) The record shows the court acted in compliance with the limitations on its discretion.

2014Nor does Diaz challenge his conviction of count 1, the Garcia robbery. 9 reasonable trier of fact could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 275.) Some of the circumstances to be considered in assessing the probative value of the identification are: “(1) the identifying witness’s prior familiarity with the defendant; (2) the witness’s opportunity to observe the perpetrator during the commission of the crime; (3) whether the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the defendant; and (4) the level of detail given by the witness in the out- o

2014Nor does Diaz challenge his conviction of count 1, the Garcia robbery. 9 reasonable trier of fact could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 275.) Some of the circumstances to be considered in assessing the probative value of the identification are: “(1) the identifying witness’s prior familiarity with the defendant; (2) the witness’s opportunity to observe the perpetrator during the commission of the crime; (3) whether the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the defendant; and (4) the level of detail given by the witness in the out- o

2004(People v. Diaz, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 715 .) Our case presents a different question, albeit one that is informed by the Diaz analysis: Does a convicted felon on parole remain a prisoner even after his release from actual incarceration?

2004(People v. Diaz, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 715 .) Our case presents a different question, albeit one that is informed by the Diaz analysis: Does a convicted felon on parole remain a prisoner even after his release from actual incarceration?

1997(Cf. Ibid.)” (People v. Diaz, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at pp. 750-751, fn. omitted.) Appellant relies on People v. Frye, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th 1080 , which disagreed with the Diaz analysis.

1997(Cf. Ibid.)” (People v. Diaz, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at pp. 750-751, fn. omitted.) Appellant relies on People v. Frye, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th 1080 , which disagreed with the Diaz analysis.

1984(People v. Pierce, su *937 pra, 24 Cal.3d 199, 208 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 265-266 ; People v. Brown, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 476, 481 .) Accordingly, on the facts of this case, the People's failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice by an affirmative evidentiary showing, 5 the lack of any rebuttal evidence other than Wolski’s self-serving statement of impartiality, the timely nature of Diaz’ motion when learning of the misconduct during a short trial before jury deliberations, and the deprivation of his right to an impartial and unbiased jury through the undermining of the

1984(People v. Pierce, su *937 pra, 24 Cal.3d 199, 208 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 265-266 ; People v. Brown, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 476, 481 .) Accordingly, on the facts of this case, the People's failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice by an affirmative evidentiary showing, 5 the lack of any rebuttal evidence other than Wolski’s self-serving statement of impartiality, the timely nature of Diaz’ motion when learning of the misconduct during a short trial before jury deliberations, and the deprivation of his right to an impartial and unbiased jury through the undermining of the

1984(People v. Pierce, su *937 pra, 24 Cal.3d 199, 208 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 265-266 ; People v. Brown, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 476, 481 .) Accordingly, on the facts of this case, the People's failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice by an affirmative evidentiary showing, 5 the lack of any rebuttal evidence other than Wolski’s self-serving statement of impartiality, the timely nature of Diaz’ motion when learning of the misconduct during a short trial before jury deliberations, and the deprivation of his right to an impartial and unbiased jury through the undermining of the

1984The dissent’s reliance on McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (1984) 464 U.S. 548 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 663 , 104 S.Ct. 845 ], is misplaced.

1984The dissent’s reliance on McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (1984) 464 U.S. 548 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 663 , 104 S.Ct. 845 ], is misplaced.