denying hearing in California

2022Denying defendant’s motion under People v. Romero (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss one or both of defendant’s prior strikes, the court stated that defendant’s “type of criminality is exactly the type of criminality that endangers people in the community, particularly the conduct in this case with a very young victim and sexual acts passing over the course of actually years, because he reengaged in the conduct subsequent to being released from prison.” Denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the serious priors, the court stated, “Again, this is a case where the public deserves to be protected fro

2021Denying defendant’s request, the trial court stated: “having looked at all of the facts that I’m required to look at in terms of sentencing factors, the objectives of the three strikes law and the defendant, I conclude that at this point that you cannot make a credible case that the defendant would be deemed outside the spirit of the three strikes law and the scheme; and therefore, I’m going to deny the motion to strike the strike and 11 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 14 also to strike the — either to the strike itself or the punishment for any of these enhancements.”

2024Denying defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage therefore required “‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion’” which is not permitted, as the “‘prima facie bar was intentionally and correctly set very low.’” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 972 .) “Because the trial court must consider the trial evidence and assess the strength and credibility of the evidence, section 1172.6 requires that it issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing.

2022Total aggregate time, 13 years state prison.” (Italics added.) B Analysis A criminal defendant is entitled to “ ‘sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the “informed discretion” of the sentencing court,’ and a court that is unaware of its 9 discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.” (People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228 .) Where the record shows the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary to afford the trial court an opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion at a new sentencing hearing.

2016Denying defendant’s motion in limine, the court ultimately allowed plaintiff’s expert witness to testify that “Piscitelli would very likely have prevailed in getting both monetary relief as well as having his [broker’s record] improved had the [NYSE] arbitration gone to completion.” (Piscitelli, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 972 .) The Court of Appeal held that allowing such testimony was an abuse of discretion.

2013Denying defense counsel the opportunity to present any closing argument whatsoever is a denial of the right to counsel. ( Herring, supra, 422 U.S. 853 ; In re William F., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 255 .) On the issue of denial versus infringement, we see no meaningful distinction between prohibiting argument altogether, and prohibiting discussion of an entire element of the crime.

2013Denying defense counsel the opportunity to present any closing argument whatsoever is a denial of the right to counsel. ( Herring, supra, 422 U.S. 853 ; In re William F., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 255 .) On the issue of denial versus infringement, we see no meaningful distinction between prohibiting argument altogether, and prohibiting discussion of an entire element of the crime.

2013Denying defense counsel the opportunity to present any closing argument whatsoever is a denial of the right to counsel. ( Herring, supra, 422 U.S. 853 ; In re William F., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 255 .) On the issue of denial versus infringement, we see no meaningful distinction between prohibiting argument altogether, and prohibiting discussion of an entire element of the crime.

1943In City of San Mateo v. Railroad Commission, 9 Cal.2d 1 [ 68 P.2d 713 ], it does not appear that the closing of the street placed the property owners on a cul-de-sac.

1943In City of San Mateo v. Railroad Commission, 9 Cal.2d 1 [ 68 P.2d 713 ], it does not appear that the closing of the street placed the property owners on a cul-de-sac.

1943In Wolff v. City of Los Angeles, 49 Cal.App. 400 [ 193 P. 862 ], the portion of the street which was graded was a considerable distance from plaintiffs’ property and beyond an intersecting street, as was pointed out by this court in denying a hearing.

1943In Wolff v. City of Los Angeles, 49 Cal.App. 400 [ 193 P. 862 ], the portion of the street which was graded was a considerable distance from plaintiffs’ property and beyond an intersecting street, as was pointed out by this court in denying a hearing.

1942Denying motion of defendants to vacate and set aside judgment and decree ...” herein, and that it is our duty to dismiss the attempted appeal therefrom (see Bessinger v. Grotz, (1942) 52 Cal. App. (2d) 379 [ 126 P. (2d) 355 ]).

1930(Decision of this court denying a hearing in In re Mash, 39 Cal. App. 551 [ 179 Pac. 898 ]; Brydonjack v. State Bar, ante, p. 439 [ 281 Pac. 1018 ].) In his application the disbarred attorney alleges that since the date of his disbarment he has not attempted to and has not practiced law, and does not maintain an office of his own, although he seems to have rendered some services for other attorneys.

1919It was so held under similar circumstances shown in the case of People v. Riggins, 159 Cal. 113 , [ 112 Pac. 862 ].

1919It was so held under similar circumstances shown in the case of People v. Riggins, 159 Cal. 113 , [ 112 Pac. 862 ].