appellate court concluded defense in California

2025(Id. at pp. 926, 931.) The appellate court concluded that defense counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because his failure to protect his client against the prosecutor’s violation of the advocate-witness rule “undermines [the court’s] confidence in the integrity and reliability of the trial.” 7 (Donaldson, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 919 .) The court reasoned that the prosecutor’s challenge to the credibility of the key witness was “ ‘highly relevant’ since [the witness’s] pretrial statements were the ‘heart of the prosecution’s case.’ ” (Id. at p. 931.) Here, unlike in Donal

2025As Donaldson recognized, the advocate-witness rule addresses the risk “ ‘that jurors will be unduly influenced by the prestige and prominence of the prosecutor’s office and will base their credibility determinations on improper factors.’ ” ( Donaldson, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at pp. 928–929, italics added; see U.S. v. Edwards (9th Cir. 1998) 154 F.3d 915, 921 [“the danger in having a prosecutor testify as a witness is that jurors will automatically presume the prosecutor to be credible and will not consider critically any evidence that may suggest otherwise”]; Doe v. Yim (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 57

2021(Townsend, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 702 .) The appellate court concluded the rule violation rendered the motion “procedurally infirm” because the time period to file a motion to vacate was jurisdictional and could not be extended due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

2015(Id. at pp. 413-414.) It based its analysis on the reasoning in Powers, supra, 499 U.S. at page 415 , which accorded a Caucasian defendant “standing” to raise the equal protection claims of excluded jurors and the community at large based on a prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges for reasons of racial group bias.

2014In Walker v. State (Tex.App. 2006) 195 S.W.3d 250, 256-257 , a prosecution for resisting arrest, six prospective jurors identified themselves as working or having close relatives who worked in law enforcement.

2014In Winn v. State (Tex.App. 1993) 871 S.W.2d 756, 763 , the appellate court concluded that defense counsel’s performance in not asking certain questions “demonstrates a lack of preparation.” The record in this case, by contrast, does not demonstrate ineffective assistance; rather, it simply fails to disclose the reasons for counsel’s actions, fails to prove that they were not based on sound tactical considerations, and fails to establish prejudice.

2011As such, the court noted that “where a grandparent or other close relative has cared for a dependent child for an extended period of time and has never done anything to cause substantial or serious harm of any kind to that child, there ought to be a very good reason for denying de facto status—particularly where, as here, the caretaker concedes that she is no longer able to care for the children herself and simply asks to be heard regarding their future placements.” (Vincent C., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 .) Unlike the court in Vincent C., we cannot say that grandmother is entirely blame

2006In Tarantino, supra, 48 Cal.App.3d 465 , the petitioner refused to submit to a psychiatric examination to determine his competency under section 1367 et seq. unless accompanied by his attorney. ( 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 468 .) The petitioner contended the examination violated his right to counsel as well as his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. ( 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 469 .) The appellate court concluded no violation of the privilege against self-incrimination would result by “compelling a defendant to submit to examination by court-appointed psychiatrists under section 1367

2006In Tarantino, supra, 48 Cal.App.3d 465 , the petitioner refused to submit to a psychiatric examination to determine his competency under section 1367 et seq. unless accompanied by his attorney. ( 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 468 .) The petitioner contended the examination violated his right to counsel as well as his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. ( 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 469 .) The appellate court concluded no violation of the privilege against self-incrimination would result by “compelling a defendant to submit to examination by court-appointed psychiatrists under section 1367

2006In Tarantino, supra, 48 Cal.App.3d 465 , the petitioner refused to submit to a psychiatric examination to determine his competency under section 1367 et seq. unless accompanied by his attorney. ( 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 468 .) The petitioner contended the examination violated his right to counsel as well as his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. ( 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 469 .) The appellate court concluded no violation of the privilege against self-incrimination would result by “compelling a defendant to submit to examination by court-appointed psychiatrists under section 1367

1995(Id. at p. 435.) *1564 In People v. Calderon (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 930 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 833 ], the appellate court held that a prima facie factual basis for defendant’s plea to an attempted murder charge was established by his admission that he intended to kill the victim.

1995(Id. at p. 435.) *1564 In People v. Calderon (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 930 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 833 ], the appellate court held that a prima facie factual basis for defendant’s plea to an attempted murder charge was established by his admission that he intended to kill the victim.