Vasquez motion in California

2024(People v. Superior Court (Vasquez), supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 73 .) At a hearing on Vasquez’s motion to dismiss, one of his former public defenders testified that she was “ ‘doing what [she] needed to do’ ” and that “ ‘Mr. Vasquez was a priority,’ ” but staffing shortages slowed her progress on his case and she ultimately was unable to take it to trial because she was transferred out of the SVP unit.

2023Even if the court had erred and was required to grant Hubbs’s request for a new attorney who would file a Vasquez motion, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , as a new attorney would not have obtained a different result for Hubbs under Vasquez, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th 36 .

2018We also have a more complete record than the one before the Supreme Court in Williams , in which the court noted that because the defendant had not filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, on appeal there was no record of whether the delays resulted from the individual attorneys' inability to manage their caseloads or "unreasonable resource constraints ... or other systemic problems." ( Williams , supra , 58 Cal.4th at p. 249 , 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 717 , 315 P.3d 1 .) Here, an extensive record supported Vasquez's motion to dismiss, including the testimony of Shenkman and Santiago.

2018We also have a more complete record than the one before the Supreme Court in Williams , in which the court noted that because the defendant had not filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, on appeal there was no record of whether the delays resulted from the individual attorneys' inability to manage their caseloads or "unreasonable resource constraints ... or other systemic problems." ( Williams , supra , 58 Cal.4th at p. 249 , 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 717 , 315 P.3d 1 .) Here, an extensive record supported Vasquez's motion to dismiss, including the testimony of Shenkman and Santiago.

2025Instead, it applied the Second Amendment test previously articulated in Bruen, supra, 597 U.S. 1 , and in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570 , both of which were decided before Vasquez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in June 2023.

2025Vasquez’s challenge to his section 29800 conviction is barred because he did not obtain a certificate of appealability. “[I]f the judgment resulted from a guilty or no contest plea, Penal Code section 1237.5, subdivisions (a) and (b), provide that no appeal may be taken unless ‘[t]he defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings,’ and the court ‘has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk

2025Instead, it applied the Second Amendment test previously articulated in Bruen, supra, 597 U.S. 1 , and in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570 , both of which were decided before Vasquez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in June 2023.

2024(People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398 , 472–473.) Further, as the trial court correctly ruled, the evidence was relevant and admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) to show Vasquez’s motive and intent.

2023Even if the court had erred and was required to grant Hubbs’s request for a new attorney who would file a Vasquez motion, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , as a new attorney would not have obtained a different result for Hubbs under Vasquez, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th 36 .

2023Even if the court had erred and was required to grant Hubbs’s request for a new attorney who would file a Vasquez motion, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , as a new attorney would not have obtained a different result for Hubbs under Vasquez, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th 36 .

2023The court denied Hubbs’s motion, finding that a Vasquez motion was not appropriate because Hubbs had been brought to trial twice, he executed waivers under Litmon, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 383 , and his case was continued due to health issues and writ proceedings.

2023The court denied Hubbs’s motion, finding that a Vasquez motion was not appropriate because Hubbs had been brought to trial twice, he executed waivers under Litmon, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 383 , and his case was continued due to health issues and writ proceedings.

2023(People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 712 .) Section 6600(a)(3) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he details underlying the commission of an offense that led to a prior conviction, including a predatory relationship with the victim, may be shown by Vasquez motion, and would have reversed and remanded for that inquiry to occur, with the prospect that substitute counsel could be appointed if defendant’s counsel believed the motion had merit but declined to pursue it because of a conflict of interest.

2022The court reasoned that the decision not to file the Vasquez/Litmon motion “was essentially a tactical decision, and ‘[t]actical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an “irreconcilable conflict.” ’ [Citation.] ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Orey, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at pp. 568-569.) “[W]hen a defendant exercises his or her constitutional right to representation by professional counsel, it is counsel who ‘is in charge of the case’ and t

2021(See People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1259 ; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 330 ; People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 446 .) 2.

2021(See People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1259 ; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 330 ; People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 446 .) 2.

2021(See People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1259 ; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 330 ; People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 446 .) 2.

2020(People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 , quoting People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 549–550, fn. 3 [“Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal”].) 9 struggle.

2020(People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 , quoting People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545 , 549–550, fn. 3 [“Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal”].) 9 struggle.

2018In addition, Vasquez agreed to a 10- month continuance for Shenkman to evaluate whether to seek appellate review of the trial court’s order denying Vasquez’s motion to replace the evaluators. 22 During the three-month period from February 14 to May 30, 2007, the public defender’s office announced it was unavailable for trial under In re Edward S., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th 387 .

2017(See Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 ; Vasquez, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 ; Flores v. Axxis Network & Telecommunications, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 802, 806 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (Flores).) The Vasquez court noted that Torrez and Deschene held that unions could not waive individuals’ statutory rights to a judicial forum.

2017(See Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 ; Vasquez, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 ; Flores v. Axxis Network & Telecommunications, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 802, 806 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (Flores).) The Vasquez court noted that Torrez and Deschene held that unions could not waive individuals’ statutory rights to a judicial forum.

2014(People v. Mayberry, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 150 [testimony that has been believed by trier of fact can be rejected only if there exists “either a physical impossibility that they are true or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions”] People v. Smith, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th 415 [internally inconsistent testimony is sufficient to support jury determination that victim’s molestation involved substantial sexual conduct]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 [testimony of a single witness is sufficient].) On this basis we reject Vasquez’s challenge to the

2014(People v. Mayberry, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 150 [testimony that has been believed by trier of fact can be rejected only if there exists “either a physical impossibility that they are true or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions”] People v. Smith, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th 415 [internally inconsistent testimony is sufficient to support jury determination that victim’s molestation involved substantial sexual conduct]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 [testimony of a single witness is sufficient].) On this basis we reject Vasquez’s challenge to the

2010The court explained, in its view, the issue raised by Vasquez’s motion was not only whether a payment by Allstate Insurance on behalf of Vasquez was properly considered restitution directly from him—the legal question addressed in Short, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 899—but also whether the settlement payment was for medical expenses included within the original restitution award, for which a setoff might be appropriate, or for additional, postrestitution-award costs, as well as pain and suffering, resulting from the pit bull attack: “That 168 was up to that point in time for all the expenses incurr

2010The Trial Court Properly Denied Vasquez’s Motion to Order Satisfaction of Judgment Whether we follow the holdings of Short, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 899 , and People v. Jennings, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 42 , as Vasquez urges, or the contrary reasoning of Justice Benke’s dissent in Jennings and the suggestion in People v. Hamilton, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 932 , as advanced by the Attorney General, the trial court properly denied Vasquez’s motion to order satisfaction of restitution.

2010The Trial Court Properly Denied Vasquez’s Motion to Order Satisfaction of Judgment Whether we follow the holdings of Short, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 899 , and People v. Jennings, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 42 , as Vasquez urges, or the contrary reasoning of Justice Benke’s dissent in Jennings and the suggestion in People v. Hamilton, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 932 , as advanced by the Attorney General, the trial court properly denied Vasquez’s motion to order satisfaction of restitution.

2010The Trial Court Properly Denied Vasquez’s Motion to Order Satisfaction of Judgment Whether we follow the holdings of Short, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 899 , and People v. Jennings, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 42 , as Vasquez urges, or the contrary reasoning of Justice Benke’s dissent in Jennings and the suggestion in People v. Hamilton, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 932 , as advanced by the Attorney General, the trial court properly denied Vasquez’s motion to order satisfaction of restitution.