merits of any claim in California

2023(See People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 16 (Aledamat) [“what is meant by inherently deadly” is “an object that is designed for use as a deadly weapon”].) Thus, although the instruction correctly stated the law—embracing both theories of section 245(a)(1) liability—we agree with the parties that the reference to an “inherently deadly” weapon was error.3 (See Aledamat, at 3 Although trial counsel did not object to the wording of either the written or oral instruction for count 2, the claim is not forfeited because “we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affec

2016He claims the modified instruction allowed the jury to convict based solely on a "threat," rather than "force or violence." The People contend Matthews forfeited his challenge by failing to object below. " 'Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.' [Citations.] But that rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law." (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4t

2012(In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 799.) In addition, counsel in both this and other cases are forewarned that the filing of abusive petitions in the future may subject them to financial sanctions under rule 8.276 of the California Rules of Court.

2012(In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 799.) In addition, counsel in both this and other 40 See, e.g., California Constitution, article VI, section 11, subd. (a) (―The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction when judgment of death has been pronounced.‖); Penal Code section 1239, subdivision (b) (―When upon any plea a judgment of death is rendered, an appeal is automatically taken by the defendant without any action by him or her or his or her counsel.‖); In re Morgan, supra, 50 Cal.4th 932 (exercising this court‘s inherent authority to permit the filing of a ―shell‖ or ―placeholder‖ habeas corp

2025Even if trial counsel should have objected to the CALCRIM No. 400 instruction,7 Penal Code “section 1259 allows us to reach the merits of any claim of instructional error that potentially affects a party’s substantial rights.” (People v. Amezcua and Flores (2019) 6 Cal.5th 886, 916 .) Reaching the merits, we reject Jasso’s claim.

2025Even if trial counsel should have objected to the CALCRIM No. 400 instruction,7 Penal Code “section 1259 allows us to reach the merits of any claim of instructional error that potentially affects a party’s substantial rights.” (People v. Amezcua and Flores (2019) 6 Cal.5th 886, 916 .) Reaching the merits, we reject Jasso’s claim.

2016He claims the modified instruction allowed the jury to convict based solely on a "threat," rather than "force or violence." The People contend Matthews forfeited his challenge by failing to object below. " 'Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.' [Citations.] But that rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law." (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4t

2014The forfeiture “rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. [Citations.]” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 .) In any event, “we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. [Citations.]” (People v. Brown, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 9, fn. 5 .) The trial court’s erred in instructing the jury pursuant to former CALCRIM No. 875 on a legally incorrect theory.

2023(See People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 16 (Aledamat) [“what is meant by inherently deadly” is “an object that is designed for use as a deadly weapon”].) Thus, although the instruction correctly stated the law—embracing both theories of section 245(a)(1) liability—we agree with the parties that the reference to an “inherently deadly” weapon was error.3 (See Aledamat, at 3 Although trial counsel did not object to the wording of either the written or oral instruction for count 2, the claim is not forfeited because “we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affec

2023(Cf. Crummer v. Zalk (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 794 , 796–797 [court will not presume error or preservation of claim by assuming objection to evidence challenged on appeal was made and overruled in trial court where appeal was on clerk’s transcript alone]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799 [noting appellant has burden on appeal to demonstrate proper preservation of claims in trial court through timely assertion].) Here, Mahamedi does not show that he argued to the arbitrator that the $375 and $395 hourly rates were unenforceable because a violation of section 6148 rende

2023(See People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 16 (Aledamat) [“what is meant by inherently deadly” is “an object that is designed for use as a deadly weapon”].) Thus, although the instruction correctly stated the law—embracing both theories of section 245(a)(1) liability—we agree with the parties that the reference to an “inherently deadly” weapon was error.3 (See Aledamat, at 3 Although trial counsel did not object to the wording of either the written or oral instruction for count 2, the claim is not forfeited because “we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affec

2023(See Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 8 [if the court had instructed the jury on the legal meaning of “inherently deadly,” the error “would have been purely factual”; but as it was, the alternative-theory instruction amounted to legal error].)4 Alternative-theory error— providing the jury with both a valid and an invalid theory for conviction—is subject to the same Chapman (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ) prejudice standard applicable to other types of federal constitutional error.

2022Forfeiture is inappropriate where the court acted in violation of the defendant’s right to be present for court proceedings, which would have provided the chance for a contemporaneous objection. 14 Finally, even if we thought the objection forfeited, we should exercise our discretion to hear this appeal, as “[Penal Code] section 1259 allows us to reach the merits of any claim of instructional error that potentially affects a party’s substantial rights.” (People v. Amezcua & Flores (2019) 6 Cal.5th 886, 916 ; see also People v. Bradford, supra, 154 Cal.App. at p. 1410 [suggesting that counsel c

2022(People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1260 [defendant’s failure to object to jury instruction generally forfeits appellate review]; People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463 , 498 (Campbell).) 24 While there is no dispute that Johnson did not object to CALCRIM 2623 or request any modification of the standard language in the trial court, Johnson claims there is no forfeiture because the instruction affected his substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. Amezcua and Flores (2019) 6 Cal.5th 886, 916 [“[S]ection 1259 allows us to reach the merits of any claim of instructional error that potenti

2014(Cf. Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 719 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 ] [city’s finding regarding one of the overriding considerations was not supported by substantial evidence].) *566 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2014(Cf. Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 719 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 ] [city’s finding regarding one of the overriding considerations was not supported by substantial evidence].) *566 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2012(He did raise the issue in a motion for new trial.) However, we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ].) The Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 875 cite Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pages 1028 to 1029 for the definition of “deadly weapon.” Graham was disapproved on another ground in People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 32 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 533 P.2d 1017 ], which itself was overruled on yet anoth

2012(He did raise the issue in a motion for new trial.) However, we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ].) The Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 875 cite Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pages 1028 to 1029 for the definition of “deadly weapon.” Graham was disapproved on another ground in People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 32 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 533 P.2d 1017 ], which itself was overruled on yet anoth

2012(He did raise the issue in a motion for new trial.) However, we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ].) The Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 875 cite Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pages 1028 to 1029 for the definition of “deadly weapon.” Graham was disapproved on another ground in People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 32 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 533 P.2d 1017 ], which itself was overruled on yet anoth

2012(He did raise the issue in a motion for new trial.) However, we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ].) The Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 875 cite Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pages 1028 to 1029 for the definition of “deadly weapon.” Graham was disapproved on another ground in People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 32 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 533 P.2d 1017 ], which itself was overruled on yet anoth

2012(He did raise the issue in a motion for new trial.) However, we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ].) The Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 875 cite Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pages 1028 to 1029 for the definition of “deadly weapon.” Graham was disapproved on another ground in People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 32 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 533 P.2d 1017 ], which itself was overruled on yet anoth

2012(He did raise the issue in a motion for new trial.) However, we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ].) The Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 875 cite Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pages 1028 to 1029 for the definition of “deadly weapon.” Graham was disapproved on another ground in People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 32 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 533 P.2d 1017 ], which itself was overruled on yet anoth

2012(In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 799.) In addition, counsel in both this and other 40 See, e.g., California Constitution, article VI, section 11, subd. (a) (―The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction when judgment of death has been pronounced.‖); Penal Code section 1239, subdivision (b) (―When upon any plea a judgment of death is rendered, an appeal is automatically taken by the defendant without any action by him or her or his or her counsel.‖); In re Morgan, supra, 50 Cal.4th 932 (exercising this court‘s inherent authority to permit the filing of a ―shell‖ or ―placeholder‖ habeas corp

1970The function of an appellate court in a pleading case of this type is set forth in Lloyd v. California Pictures Corp. (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 638, 642 [ 289 P.2d 295 ]: “As hereinbefore indicated, the merits of plaintiff’s complaint, and likewise the merits of any defense offered by the defendants, are matters in no manner involved in the present appeal.

1970The function of an appellate court in a pleading case of this type is set forth in Lloyd v. California Pictures Corp. (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 638, 642 [ 289 P.2d 295 ]: “As hereinbefore indicated, the merits of plaintiff’s complaint, and likewise the merits of any defense offered by the defendants, are matters in no manner involved in the present appeal.