aspect doctrine in California

2025(People v. Adanandus (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 496, 503 [“Absent some evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to presume that 16 months after Johnson[ v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162 ] the trial court knew and applied the appropriate law governing a Wheeler/Batson motion.”]; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 [“As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed, we presume . . . that the court 9 knows and applies the correct statutory and case law”], overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) Even if an upda

2024But “[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew and applied the governing law.” (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1390 .) We also presume, absent “an affirmative record to the contrary,” that it “considered all of the relevant factors.” (People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 310 .) That settled rule is “an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed.” (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 , overruled on other ground by Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) The record here reflects no commen

2022The prior judgment is not a complete bar, but it ‘operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.’ (Todhunter v. Smith [(1934)] 219 Cal. 690, 695 [ 28 P.2d 916 ].) This aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, now commonly referred to as the doctrine of collateral estoppel, is confined to issues actually litigated.” (Clark v. Lesher (1956) 46 Cal.2d 874, 880 ; see also Sutphin v. Speik, supra, 15 Cal.2d at pp. 201-202.) “First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be ident

2022The prior judgment is not a complete bar, but it ‘operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.’ (Todhunter v. Smith [(1934)] 219 Cal. 690, 695 [ 28 P.2d 916 ].) This aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, now commonly referred to as the doctrine of collateral estoppel, is confined to issues actually litigated.” (Clark v. Lesher (1956) 46 Cal.2d 874, 880 ; see also Sutphin v. Speik, supra, 15 Cal.2d at pp. 201-202.) “First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be ident

2025(People v. Adanandus (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 496, 503 [“Absent some evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to presume that 16 months after Johnson[ v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162 ] the trial court knew and applied the appropriate law governing a Wheeler/Batson motion.”]; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 [“As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed, we presume . . . that the court 9 knows and applies the correct statutory and case law”], overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) Even if an upda

2024But “[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew and applied the governing law.” (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1390 .) We also presume, absent “an affirmative record to the contrary,” that it “considered all of the relevant factors.” (People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 310 .) That settled rule is “an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed.” (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 , overruled on other ground by Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) The record here reflects no commen

2022The prior judgment is not a complete bar, but it ‘operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.’ (Todhunter v. Smith [(1934)] 219 Cal. 690, 695 [ 28 P.2d 916 ].) This aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, now commonly referred to as the doctrine of collateral estoppel, is confined to issues actually litigated.” (Clark v. Lesher (1956) 46 Cal.2d 874, 880 ; see also Sutphin v. Speik, supra, 15 Cal.2d at pp. 201-202.) “First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be ident

2021The prior judgment is not a complete bar, but it ‘operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.’ (Todhunter v. Smith [(1934)] 219 Cal. 690, 695 [ 28 P.2d 916 ].) This aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, now commonly referred to as the doctrine of collateral estoppel, is confined to issues actually litigated.” (Clark v. Lesher (1956) 46 Cal.2d 874, 880 ; see also Sutphin v. Speik, supra, 15 Cal.2d at pp. 201-202.) “First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be ident

2021Restated from another perspective, the elements for claim preclusion (the primary aspect of the doctrine of res judicata) are: “ ‘(1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253 ; see DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 .) The issues raised by Sloan’s caus

2020(DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 (DKN).) Thus, when we use the term "res judicata" in this opinion, we are referring to the claim preclusion aspect of the doctrine. 10 28 Cal.4th 888 (Mycogen), the Supreme Court explained the reason for this aspect of claim preclusion: " ' "Res judicata [claim preclusion] precludes piecemeal litigation by splitting a single cause of action or relitigation of the same cause of action on a different legal theory or for different relief." ' [Citation.] A predictable doctrine of res judicata [claim preclusion] benefits both the parties and t

1977Co., Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601, 604 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 559 , 375 P.2d 439 ], quoting from Bernhard v. Bank of America, *670 19 Cal.2d 807, 810 [ 122 P.2d 892 ]; see also Solari v. Atlas-Universal Service, Inc., 215 Cal.App.2d 587, 592 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 407 ].) The latter aspect of the doctrine is known as collateral estoppel. . . .” (Ponce v. Tractor Supply Co., 29 Cal.App.3d 500, 504 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 628 ].) 2 It is based on the sound public policy of limiting litigation when a party has already had one fair trial on an issue.

1977Co., Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601, 604 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 559 , 375 P.2d 439 ], quoting from Bernhard v. Bank of America, *670 19 Cal.2d 807, 810 [ 122 P.2d 892 ]; see also Solari v. Atlas-Universal Service, Inc., 215 Cal.App.2d 587, 592 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 407 ].) The latter aspect of the doctrine is known as collateral estoppel. . . .” (Ponce v. Tractor Supply Co., 29 Cal.App.3d 500, 504 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 628 ].) 2 It is based on the sound public policy of limiting litigation when a party has already had one fair trial on an issue.

2026(In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 ; see Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 3 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 678 [absent indication in the record that an error occurred, we must presume there was no error]; see also In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1526 [as an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed, w

2026Code, § 664)], we presume . . . that the court knows and applies the correct statutory and case law [citation] and is able to distinguish admissible from inadmissible evidence, relevant from irrelevant facts, and to recognize those facts which properly may be considered in the judicial decisionmaking process.’ ” (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1526 .) III.

2026Thus, when the defendant files a motion for summary judgment, the existence of a possible conflict of evidence, as shown by the proof submitted on the motion, will not create a triable issue on this aspect of the defense that can defeat a summary judgment . . . .’ [Citation.] ‘We are not concerned with whether the evidence of reasonableness is 9 undisputed; the statute provides immunity when there is substantial evidence of reasonableness, even if contradicted. [Citations.]’ ” (Wyckoff v. State of California (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 45 , 50–51.) “ ‘Any substantial evidence’ to establish this thir

2020Thus, when the defendant files a motion for summary judgment, the existence of a possible conflict of evidence, as shown by the proof submitted on the motion, will not create a triable issue on this aspect of the defense that can defeat a summary judgment . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Wyckoff v. State of California (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 45, 50-51 (Wyckoff).) “We are not concerned with whether the evidence of reasonableness is undisputed; the statute provides immunity when there is substantial evidence of reasonableness, even if contradicted. [Citations.]” (Grenier v. City of Irwindale (1997) 57 Cal.A

2022The prior judgment is not a complete bar, but it ‘operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.’ (Todhunter v. Smith [(1934)] 219 Cal. 690, 695 [ 28 P.2d 916 ].) This aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, now commonly referred to as the doctrine of collateral estoppel, is confined to issues actually litigated.” (Clark v. Lesher (1956) 46 Cal.2d 874, 880 ; see also Sutphin v. Speik, supra, 15 Cal.2d at pp. 201-202.) “First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be ident

2021The prior judgment is not a complete bar, but it ‘operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.’ (Todhunter v. Smith [(1934)] 219 Cal. 690, 695 [ 28 P.2d 916 ].) This aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, now commonly referred to as the doctrine of collateral estoppel, is confined to issues actually litigated.” (Clark v. Lesher (1956) 46 Cal.2d 874, 880 ; see also Sutphin v. Speik, supra, 15 Cal.2d at pp. 201-202.) “First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be ident

2022The fact that [s]he has heard these things does not mean that [s]he cannot divorce them from [her] mind.”’” (Hayward v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 10, 60 , citing People v. Beaumaster (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 996, 1009 .) “‘“As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed [citation], we presume . . . that the court . . . is able to distinguish admissible from inadmissible evidence, relevant from irrelevant facts, and to recognize those facts which properly may be considered in the judicial decisionmaking process.” [Citation.] Stated another way, a trial court is p

2020The fact that [s]he has heard these things does not mean that [s]he cannot divorce them from [her] mind.”’” (Hayward v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 10, 60 , citing People v. Beaumaster (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 996, 1009 .) “‘“As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed [citation], we presume . . . that the court . . . is able to distinguish admissible from inadmissible evidence, relevant from irrelevant facts, and to recognize those facts which properly may be considered in the judicial decisionmaking process.” [Citation.] Stated another way, a trial court is p

1977Co., Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601, 604 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 559 , 375 P.2d 439 ], quoting from Bernhard v. Bank of America, *670 19 Cal.2d 807, 810 [ 122 P.2d 892 ]; see also Solari v. Atlas-Universal Service, Inc., 215 Cal.App.2d 587, 592 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 407 ].) The latter aspect of the doctrine is known as collateral estoppel. . . .” (Ponce v. Tractor Supply Co., 29 Cal.App.3d 500, 504 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 628 ].) 2 It is based on the sound public policy of limiting litigation when a party has already had one fair trial on an issue.

1977Co., Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601, 604 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 559 , 375 P.2d 439 ], quoting from Bernhard v. Bank of America, *670 19 Cal.2d 807, 810 [ 122 P.2d 892 ]; see also Solari v. Atlas-Universal Service, Inc., 215 Cal.App.2d 587, 592 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 407 ].) The latter aspect of the doctrine is known as collateral estoppel. . . .” (Ponce v. Tractor Supply Co., 29 Cal.App.3d 500, 504 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 628 ].) 2 It is based on the sound public policy of limiting litigation when a party has already had one fair trial on an issue.

1992(Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange (1972) 7 Cal.3d 616, 633 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 498 P.2d 1063 ].) The doctrine of res judicata has a double aspect: *377 of a particular issue. [Citation.]” (Solari v. Atlas-Universal Service, Inc., supra, 215 Cal.App.2d at p. 592 .) 6 *376 “ ‘(1) [I]t “precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.” (2) “Any issue necessarily decided in such litigation is conclusively determined as to the parties or their privies if it is involved in a subsequent lawsuit on a differ

1977Co., Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601, 604 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 559 , 375 P.2d 439 ], quoting from Bernhard v. Bank of America, *670 19 Cal.2d 807, 810 [ 122 P.2d 892 ]; see also Solari v. Atlas-Universal Service, Inc., 215 Cal.App.2d 587, 592 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 407 ].) The latter aspect of the doctrine is known as collateral estoppel. . . .” (Ponce v. Tractor Supply Co., 29 Cal.App.3d 500, 504 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 628 ].) 2 It is based on the sound public policy of limiting litigation when a party has already had one fair trial on an issue.

2026Code, § 1102, subd. (a); see also People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219, 224 [“Proof of the good character of the defendant may be considered as a fact tending to rebut the truth of testimony of an incriminatory character which is sufficient to establish the truth of the charge against him”].) However, the trial court has no duty to instruct on an aspect of the defense that is not supported by substantial evidence.

2014Code, § 1102, subd. (a); see also People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219, 224 [“Proof of the good character of the defendant may be considered as a fact tending to rebut the truth of testimony of an incriminatory character which is sufficient to establish the truth of the charge against him.”].) However, the trial court has no duty to instruct on an aspect of the defense that is not supported by substantial evidence.

2022Although the doctrine has ancient roots [citation], its contours and associated terminology have evolved over time.” (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 326 (Samara).) Courts have at times used “res judicata”--“Latin for ‘a thing adjudicated’ ”--as an umbrella term, encompassing both the primary aspect of claim preclusion and the secondary aspect of issue preclusion.

2021(See Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 326 [“[w]e now refer to ‘claim preclusion’ rather than ‘res judicata’ [citation], and use ‘issue preclusion’ in place of ‘direct or collateral estoppel’”]; DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 [“[t]o avoid future confusion, we will follow the example of other courts and use the terms ‘claim preclusion’ to describe the primary aspect of the res judicata doctrine and ‘issue preclusion’ to encompass the notion of collateral estoppel”].) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the sam

2021(Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 .) These claims include that the court had a conflict of interest, the court violated his due process rights or “punished” Shapouri, it failed to “ask questions about hate speech, alcohol and drug abuse, or even prostitution,” and it “illegally granted injunctive relief for [N.R.’s mother] although she was not present, not wanting to be on the order, [and] unable to be questioned.” As stated, we are required to presume the court carried out 5 its official duties properly and that if Shapouri had raised the issues belo

2021(Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 .) These claims include that the court had a conflict of interest, the court violated his due process rights or “punished” Shapouri, it failed to “ask questions about hate speech, alcohol and drug abuse, or even prostitution,” and it “illegally granted injunctive relief for [N.R.’s mother] although she was not present, not wanting to be on the order, [and] unable to be questioned.” As stated, we are required to presume the court carried out 5 its official duties properly and that if Shapouri had raised the issues belo

2020(Ibid.; County of San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 68, 75, 98 ; Lucia Mar, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 835 ; County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1189 .) But there is an additional aspect to the analysis.

2020(Ibid.; County of San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 68, 75, 98 ; Lucia Mar, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 835 ; County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1189 .) But there is an additional aspect to the analysis.

2016(See, e.g., People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 762 [decision to decline to commit adult to the youth authority]; People v. Quicke (1964) 61 Cal.2d 155, 159-160 [decision to impose death penalty]; People v. Hooton (1959) 53 Cal.2d 85, 88 [determination to impose life sentence].) “Isolated or ambiguous remarks by the trial court do not overcome that presumption.

2013(See, e.g., People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 762 [decision to decline to commit adult to the youth authority]; People v. Quicke (1964) 61 Cal.2d 155, 159-160 [decision to impose death penalty]; People v. Hooton (1959) 53 Cal.2d 85, 88 [determination to impose life sentence].) And “[i]solated or ambiguous remarks by the trial court do not overcome that presumption.

2025Issue preclusion, an aspect of claim preclusion, “‘precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.’” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896 ; see also Patel v. Crown Diamonds, Inc. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 29, 39 .) East West acknowledges that in order to apply issue preclusion, several requirements must be met, including that “the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as or in privity with the party to the former proceeding.” (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 896 , quoting Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335

2020(DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 (DKN).) Thus, when we use the term "res judicata" in this opinion, we are referring to the claim preclusion aspect of the doctrine. 10 28 Cal.4th 888 (Mycogen), the Supreme Court explained the reason for this aspect of claim preclusion: " ' "Res judicata [claim preclusion] precludes piecemeal litigation by splitting a single cause of action or relitigation of the same cause of action on a different legal theory or for different relief." ' [Citation.] A predictable doctrine of res judicata [claim preclusion] benefits both the parties and t

2026Thus, when the defendant files a motion for summary judgment, the existence of a possible conflict of evidence, as shown by the proof submitted on the motion, will not create a triable issue on this aspect of the defense that can defeat a summary judgment . . . .’ [Citation.] ‘We are not concerned with whether the evidence of reasonableness is 9 undisputed; the statute provides immunity when there is substantial evidence of reasonableness, even if contradicted. [Citations.]’ ” (Wyckoff v. State of California (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 45 , 50–51.) “ ‘Any substantial evidence’ to establish this thir

2023Thus, when the defendant files a motion for summary judgment, the existence of a possible conflict of evidence, as shown by the proof submitted on the motion, will not create a triable issue on this aspect of the defense that can defeat a summary judgment . . . .’” (Wyckoff v. State of California (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 45, 50-51 , quoting 2 Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th. ed. 2001) Dangerous Condition of Public Property, § 12.74, p. 842.) 1.

2026(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson); Contra Costa County v. Pinole Point Properties, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 914, 925 (Contra Costa County) [“The appellant has the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error based on an adequate record and appropriate legal argument”].) “ ‘In 6 the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609 .) “ ‘As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed [Evid.

2026(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson); Contra Costa County v. Pinole Point Properties, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 914, 925 (Contra Costa County) [“The appellant has the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error based on an adequate record and appropriate legal argument”].) “ ‘In 6 the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609 .) “ ‘As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed [Evid.

2026(In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 ; see Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 3 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 678 [absent indication in the record that an error occurred, we must presume there was no error]; see also In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1526 [as an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed, w

2021Code, § 664], we presume . . . that the court knows and applies the correct statutory and case law [citation] and is able to distinguish admissible from inadmissible evidence, relevant from irrelevant facts, and to recognize those facts which properly may be considered in the judicial decisionmaking process.’ ” (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1531 .) 2 As a general rule, “ ‘[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct [with] [a]ll intendments and presumptions . . . indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent.’ ” (Denham v. Superi

2021Restated from another perspective, the elements for claim preclusion (the primary aspect of the doctrine of res judicata) are: “ ‘(1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253 ; see DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 .) The issues raised by Sloan’s caus

2014(People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 252 (Barragan).) Defendant meticulously reviews the elements of res judicata and collateral estoppel and attempts to apply them to his petition for resentencing.