Applicable Law standard in California

2016(People v. Ormonde (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 282, 290 .) “As the finder of fact in a proceeding to suppress evidence (Pen.

2016(People v. Ormonde (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 282, 290 .) “As the finder of fact in a proceeding to suppress evidence (Pen.

2026Applicable Law The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (the doctrine) “refers to the requirement that administrative remedies be pursued as a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking judicial relief from an administrative action.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1148 .) “In general, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.] Under this rule, an administrative remedy is exhausted only upon ‘termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.’” (Coach

2026(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1081, fn. 10 .) To establish such a claim, a defendant must show (1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) prejudice, that is, but for counsel’s unprofessional error a different result would have been reasonably probable.

2026Applicable Law The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (the doctrine) “refers to the requirement that administrative remedies be pursued as a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking judicial relief from an administrative action.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1148 .) “In general, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.] Under this rule, an administrative remedy is exhausted only upon ‘termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.’” (Coach

2026Applicable Law The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (the doctrine) “refers to the requirement that administrative remedies be pursued as a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking judicial relief from an administrative action.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1148 .) “In general, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.] Under this rule, an administrative remedy is exhausted only upon ‘termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.’” (Coach

2026Applicable Law The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (the doctrine) “refers to the requirement that administrative remedies be pursued as a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking judicial relief from an administrative action.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1148 .) “In general, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.] Under this rule, an administrative remedy is exhausted only upon ‘termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.’” (Coach

2022(People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605 , 609–610.) When focusing on the specific street gang the defendant was trying to benefit, the prosecution had to also show the gang previously committed primary offenses or predicate offenses, that were consistent with the offense the defendant committed.

2021(People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181 , 198.) “ ‘[A] defendant claiming a violation of the federal constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel must satisfy a two- pronged showing: that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the defendant was prejudiced, that is, there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different were it not for the deficient performance.’ [Citations.] Rarely is ineffective assistance of counsel established on appeal since the record usually sheds no light on counsel’s reasons for action or inaction.” (People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th

2021A. Applicable Law Our analysis of whether Hernandez forfeited his claim is guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 461 (Sánchez), and our analysis of whether inclusion of the witness certainty factor in CALCRIM No. 315 violated Hernandez’s due process rights is guided by Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th 644 .

2021A. Applicable Law Our analysis of whether Hernandez forfeited his claim is guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 461 (Sánchez), and our analysis of whether inclusion of the witness certainty factor in CALCRIM No. 315 violated Hernandez’s due process rights is guided by Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th 644 .

2021(People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181 , 198.) “ ‘[A] defendant claiming a violation of the federal constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel must satisfy a two- pronged showing: that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the defendant was prejudiced, that is, there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different were it not for the deficient performance.’ [Citations.] Rarely is ineffective assistance of counsel established on appeal since the record usually sheds no light on counsel’s reasons for action or inaction.” (People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th

2015(See In re Alvernaz, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 945 .) Rather, an assertion of prejudice “must be corroborated independently by objective evidence.” (Id. at p. 938.) “ ‘In determining whether a defendant, with effective assistance, would have accepted [or rejected a plea] offer, pertinent factors to be considered include: whether counsel actually and accurately communicated the offer to the defendant; the advice, if any, given by counsel; the disparity between the terms of the proposed plea bargain and the probable consequences of proceeding to trial, as viewed at the time of the offer; and whethe

2015Applicable Law At issue here is section 361.2, which permits the juvenile court to grant legal and physical custody of the child to a noncustodial parent after lawful removal of the child from a custodial parent or legal guardian. (§ 361.2, subs. (a), (b), (c)6; see In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 969 (V.F.); R.S. v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270 .) “If a noncustodial parent requests custody of a child, the trial court must determine whether placement with that parent would be detrimental to the child. 6 Section 361.2, reads, in pertinent part: “(a) When a court order

2015A. Applicable Law To challenge a plea based on ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must prove two elements: (1) “ ‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ ” under prevailing professional norms, and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” (Hill v. Lockhart (1985) 474 U.S. 52, 57, 59 [ 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 209-210 ]; In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 936-937 .) 11 A defendant’s self-serving statement that he would have insisted on going to trial but

2015(See In re Alvernaz, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 945 .) Rather, an assertion of prejudice “must be corroborated independently by objective evidence.” (Id. at p. 938.) “ ‘In determining whether a defendant, with effective assistance, would have accepted [or rejected a plea] offer, pertinent factors to be considered include: whether counsel actually and accurately communicated the offer to the defendant; the advice, if any, given by counsel; the disparity between the terms of the proposed plea bargain and the probable consequences of proceeding to trial, as viewed at the time of the offer; and whethe

1994(City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ].) . . .

1994(City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ].) . . .