Legal Principles standard in California

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2023A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review The fundamental “purpose of an EIR is to ‘provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.’ (§ 21061; see Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (b)–(e).)” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 , 511–512 (Sierra Club).) “By making this information available to decision makers and the public at a crucial moment

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937 .) Preju

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937 .) Preju

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937 .) Preju

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937 .) Preju

2024(Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651 , 658.) “In interpreting statutory requirements, court have . . . used the terms ‘mandatory’ and ‘directory.’ ” (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 340 (Kabran).) “The word ‘mandatory’ may be used in a statute to refer to a duty that a governmental entity is required to perform as opposed to a power that it may, but need not exercise.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145 (California Correctional).) “Whether a requirement is mandatory or directory is det

2024(Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651 , 658.) “In interpreting statutory requirements, court have . . . used the terms ‘mandatory’ and ‘directory.’ ” (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 340 (Kabran).) “The word ‘mandatory’ may be used in a statute to refer to a duty that a governmental entity is required to perform as opposed to a power that it may, but need not exercise.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145 (California Correctional).) “Whether a requirement is mandatory or directory is det

2024(Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651 , 658.) “In interpreting statutory requirements, court have . . . used the terms ‘mandatory’ and ‘directory.’ ” (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 340 (Kabran).) “The word ‘mandatory’ may be used in a statute to refer to a duty that a governmental entity is required to perform as opposed to a power that it may, but need not exercise.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145 (California Correctional).) “Whether a requirement is mandatory or directory is det

2024(Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651 , 658.) “In interpreting statutory requirements, court have . . . used the terms ‘mandatory’ and ‘directory.’ ” (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 340 (Kabran).) “The word ‘mandatory’ may be used in a statute to refer to a duty that a governmental entity is required to perform as opposed to a power that it may, but need not exercise.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145 (California Correctional).) “Whether a requirement is mandatory or directory is det

2024(Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651 , 658.) “In interpreting statutory requirements, court have . . . used the terms ‘mandatory’ and ‘directory.’ ” (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 340 (Kabran).) “The word ‘mandatory’ may be used in a statute to refer to a duty that a governmental entity is required to perform as opposed to a power that it may, but need not exercise.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145 (California Correctional).) “Whether a requirement is mandatory or directory is det

2024(Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651 , 658.) “In interpreting statutory requirements, court have . . . used the terms ‘mandatory’ and ‘directory.’ ” (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 340 (Kabran).) “The word ‘mandatory’ may be used in a statute to refer to a duty that a governmental entity is required to perform as opposed to a power that it may, but need not exercise.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145 (California Correctional).) “Whether a requirement is mandatory or directory is det

2021(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 ; accord, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) Substantial evidence is that evidence which is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578 .) An appellate court must “presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the 13. trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 .) An appellate court must not reweigh the evidence (People v. Culver (1973) 10 Cal.3d 542, 548 ), reappraise the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve factual conflicts, as

2021(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 ; accord, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) Substantial evidence is that evidence which is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578 .) An appellate court must “presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the 13. trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 .) An appellate court must not reweigh the evidence (People v. Culver (1973) 10 Cal.3d 542, 548 ), reappraise the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve factual conflicts, as

2021(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 ; accord, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) Substantial evidence is that evidence which is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578 .) An appellate court must “presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the 13. trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 .) An appellate court must not reweigh the evidence (People v. Culver (1973) 10 Cal.3d 542, 548 ), reappraise the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve factual conflicts, as

2021(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 ; accord, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) Substantial evidence is that evidence which is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578 .) An appellate court must “presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the 13. trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 .) An appellate court must not reweigh the evidence (People v. Culver (1973) 10 Cal.3d 542, 548 ), reappraise the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve factual conflicts, as

2021(Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank).) “ ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.’ ” (Ibid.) We “ ‘determine de novo whether the complaint alleges facts suffici

2021(Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank).) “ ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.’ ” (Ibid.) We “ ‘determine de novo whether the complaint alleges facts suffici

2021(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 ; accord, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) Substantial evidence is that evidence which is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578 .) An appellate court must “presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the 13. trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 .) An appellate court must not reweigh the evidence (People v. Culver (1973) 10 Cal.3d 542, 548 ), reappraise the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve factual conflicts, as

2021(People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199, fn. 3 .) Rather, “it is a request for an instruction that negates the intent element of” a charged offense.

2021(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 ; accord, Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) Substantial evidence is that evidence which is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578 .) An appellate court must “presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the 13. trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 .) An appellate court must not reweigh the evidence (People v. Culver (1973) 10 Cal.3d 542, 548 ), reappraise the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve factual conflicts, as

2021Legal Principles The defense of accident is available to any person “who committed the act . . . charged through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was no evil design, intention, or culpable negligence.” (§ 26; see People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 996 (Anderson).) 9 Accident is not a true affirmative defense.

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937

2015This court explained, “[u]nder section 388, a parent may petition to change or set aside a prior order ‘upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.’ (§ 388, subd. (a)(1); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a).) The juvenile court shall order a hearing where ‘it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted’ . . . by the new order. (§ 388, subd. (d).) Thus, the parent must sufficiently allege both a change in circumstances or new evidence and the promotion of the child’s best interests. [Citation.]” (In re G.B., supra, at p. 1157, original italics, fn. omitted.

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937

2015(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937

2015The Denial of Appellant’s Section 388 Petition The legal principles and standard of review when a section 388 petition is denied without an evidentiary hearing were recently set out in by this division in In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147 .

2015This court explained, “[u]nder section 388, a parent may petition to change or set aside a prior order ‘upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.’ (§ 388, subd. (a)(1); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a).) The juvenile court shall order a hearing where ‘it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted’ . . . by the new order. (§ 388, subd. (d).) Thus, the parent must sufficiently allege both a change in circumstances or new evidence and the promotion of the child’s best interests. [Citation.]” (In re G.B., supra, at p. 1157, original italics, fn. omitted.

2008(People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 217 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ].) A killing is voluntary manslaughter when the defendant, acting with conscious disregard for life and the knowledge that the conduct is life-endangering, unintentionally kills while having an unreasonable but good faith belief in the need to act in self-defense.

2008(People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 217 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ].) A killing is voluntary manslaughter when the defendant, acting with conscious disregard for life and the knowledge that the conduct is life-endangering, unintentionally kills while having an unreasonable but good faith belief in the need to act in self-defense.