showing of prejudicial error in California

2026“A defendant must provide ‘“‘objective evidence’”’ to corroborate factual assertions. [Citation.] Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations. . . .” (Espinoza, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 321, italics added; see People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 530 (Vivar).) On a section 1473.7 motion, “when the trial court’s findings ‘derive entirely from written declarations and other documents,’ the trial court and the reviewing court ‘“are in the same position,’” and no deference is owed. [Citation.]” (Espinoza, at p. 320 [Holding, based in part on the defendant’s declaration, that he mad

2024(See Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 530 [“In a declaration submitted with his [Penal Code] section 1473.7 motion, Vivar claims he would never have entered this plea had he understood that it would require his deportation”]; Vargas, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 834 [finding defendant had not demonstrated prejudice on a claim, based on evidence presented in a new trial motion, that he was denied due process of law for consular notification violations].) I suppose we could have quite easily concluded in countless of these cases that automatic reversal was required because the statute that was violated

2024(See Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 530 [“In a declaration submitted with his [Penal Code] section 1473.7 motion, Vivar claims he would never have entered this plea had he understood that it would require his deportation”]; Vargas, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 834 [finding defendant had not demonstrated prejudice on a claim, based on evidence presented in a new trial motion, that he was denied due process of law for consular notification violations].) I suppose we could have quite easily concluded in countless of these cases that automatic reversal was required because the statute that was violated

2024(See Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 530 [“In a declaration submitted with his [Penal Code] section 1473.7 motion, Vivar claims he would never have entered this plea had he understood that it would require his deportation”]; Vargas, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 834 [finding defendant had not demonstrated prejudice on a claim, based on evidence presented in a new trial motion, that he was denied due process of law for consular notification violations].) I suppose we could have quite easily concluded in countless of these cases that automatic reversal was required because the statute that was violated

2026“A defendant must provide ‘“‘objective evidence’”’ to corroborate factual assertions. [Citation.] Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations. . . .” (Espinoza, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 321, italics added; see People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 530 (Vivar).) On a section 1473.7 motion, “when the trial court’s findings ‘derive entirely from written declarations and other documents,’ the trial court and the reviewing court ‘“are in the same position,’” and no deference is owed. [Citation.]” (Espinoza, at p. 320 [Holding, based in part on the defendant’s declaration, that he mad

2026(E.g., People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998, 1001 (Camacho); People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 870 (Mejia); People v. DeJesus (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1128-1129 (DeJesus); People v. Ogunmowo (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 67, 78-79 .) Thus, declarations are not only a proper manner of supporting a section 1473.7 motion, but they are also implicitly requisite and not inadmissible hearsay, particularly where, as here, the People can cross-examine the defendant on the assertions in the declaration when the defendant testifies.

2026(E.g., People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998, 1001 (Camacho); People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 870 (Mejia); People v. DeJesus (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1128-1129 (DeJesus); People v. Ogunmowo (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 67, 78-79 .) Thus, declarations are not only a proper manner of supporting a section 1473.7 motion, but they are also implicitly requisite and not inadmissible hearsay, particularly where, as here, the People can cross-examine the defendant on the assertions in the declaration when the defendant testifies.

2026(E.g., People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998, 1001 (Camacho); People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 870 (Mejia); People v. DeJesus (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1128-1129 (DeJesus); People v. Ogunmowo (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 67, 78-79 .) Thus, declarations are not only a proper manner of supporting a section 1473.7 motion, but they are also implicitly requisite and not inadmissible hearsay, particularly where, as here, the People can cross-examine the defendant on the assertions in the declaration when the defendant testifies.

2025(In re Marriage of Rodriguez (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 625, 633 (Rodriguez).) “In conducting our review for an abuse of discretion, we determine ‘whether the court’s factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Bodo (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 373, 384 .) “As long as the trial court exercised its discretion along legal lines, its decision will be affirmed on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support it.” ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 633 .) 2.

2025(In re Marriage of Rodriguez (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 625, 633 (Rodriguez).) “In conducting our review for an abuse of discretion, we determine ‘whether the court’s factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Bodo (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 373, 384 .) “As long as the trial court exercised its discretion along legal lines, its decision will be affirmed on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support it.” ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 633 .) 2.

2015(E.g., Crocker National Bank v. City & County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888 [where “the inquiry requires a critical consideration, in a factual context, of legal principles and their underlying values, the question [for the court] is predominantly legal and its determination is reviewed independently”].) 8 The gist of Dixon’s legal challenge is that the court misapplied the law when, after properly finding that Safeway engaged in below-cost pricing at its fuel station to Dixon’s detriment, the court “essentially held that, absent proof [that the company acted with the purpose of h

2015(See Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1161 [no grounds exist for reversal on appeal absent a showing of prejudicial error].) As Dixon notes, whether a trial court properly applied the law to the facts of the case is generally subject to independent review on appeal.

2013(See, e.g., Cassim v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 800 [court will reverse only on a showing of prejudicial error resulting in a miscarriage of justice].) We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pena leave to amend the complaint to add an estoppel theory. 8 At best, Pena made only a cursory request for leave to amend in his opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

2004(See 4 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law, supra, § 239, p. 448; see, e.g., People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ] [no reversal required where the defendant was denied right to public preliminary hearing but trial itself was error free].) Here, defendant has failed to show prejudice from the trial court’s refusal to hear the renewed motion.

2004(See 4 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law, supra, § 239, p. 448; see, e.g., People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ] [no reversal required where the defendant was denied right to public preliminary hearing but trial itself was error free].) Here, defendant has failed to show prejudice from the trial court’s refusal to hear the renewed motion.