product of multiple factors in California

2023However, as explained in People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466 , (Oliver), the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Vivar focused on the particular issue being analyzed in that case, and thus, “it’s holding was ‘a product of multiple factors with special relevance’ in that context [citation] and reaffirmed the ‘familiar postulate’ that ‘“an appellate court should defer to the factual determinations made by the trial court,”’ regardless of ‘“whether the trial court’s ruling[s are based] on oral testimony or declarations.”’” (Id. at p. 480, citing Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 528, fn. 7 .) The O

2022(Id. at p. 528, fn. 7.) In contrast, in People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1066 , which addressed a resentencing petition under Proposition 36, our Supreme Court rejected the argument that de novo review applies to a trial court’s factual findings derived from a record of conviction.

2022(See People v. Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 850 .) “‘Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial . . . .’” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055 .) It is thus “a question of fact based upon reasonable 4 Moreover, as noted in Clements: “[T]he Supreme Court emphasized in Vivar that the ‘embrace of independent review in this context is a product of multiple factors with special relevance here: the history of section 1473.7, the interests at stake in a section 1473.7 motion, the type of evidence on which a section 1473.7 ruling is likely to be based, an

2022(See People v. Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 850 .) “‘Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial . . . .’” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055 .) It is thus “a question of fact based upon reasonable 4 Moreover, as noted in Clements: “[T]he Supreme Court emphasized in Vivar that the ‘embrace of independent review in this context is a product of multiple factors with special relevance here: the history of section 1473.7, the interests at stake in a section 1473.7 motion, the type of evidence on which a section 1473.7 ruling is likely to be based, an

2022“The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 .) “The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 97

2022“The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 .) “The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 97

2022“The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 .) “The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 97

2022“The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 .) “The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 97

2022“The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 .) “The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 97

2022“The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 .) “The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 97

2022(See People v. Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 850 .) “‘Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial . . . .’” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055 .) It is thus “a question of fact based upon reasonable 4 Moreover, as noted in Clements: “[T]he Supreme Court emphasized in Vivar that the ‘embrace of independent review in this context is a product of multiple factors with special relevance here: the history of section 1473.7, the interests at stake in a section 1473.7 motion, the type of evidence on which a section 1473.7 ruling is likely to be based, an

2021(See Ault, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1260–1261, 1265–1266.) The fact that 5 Despite the passage of time, a trial court nonetheless retains the discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputes of fact.

2021“So our embrace of independent review in this context is a product of multiple factors with special relevance here: the history of section 1473.7, the interests at stake in a section 1473.7 motion, the type of evidence on which a section 1473.7 ruling is likely to be based, and the relative competence of trial courts and appellate courts to assess that evidence.” (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 527 .)12 In addition, with regard to the type of evidence on which a section 1473.7 ruling is likely to be based, Vivar addressed only appellate review of an entirely written record: “Where, as here, th