Undesignated rule in California

2025Code, § 11351.5). 2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 3 “Former section 12021[, subdivision ](a)(1) was repealed operative January 1, 2012, but its provisions were reenacted without substantive change as section 29800, subdivision (a)(1).” (People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 734, fn. 2 .) 6 On July 25, 2022, the jury found Wallace guilty of both charged offenses: corporal injury under section 273.5, subdivision (a), and false imprisonment by violence under section 236.

2024In a bifurcated court trial, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace suffered the four prior convictions alleged in the second amended information. 2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 3 “Former section 12021[, subdivision ](a)(1) was repealed operative January 1, 2012, but its provisions were reenacted without substantive change as section 29800, subdivision (a)(1).” (People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 734, fn. 2 .) 6 On September 8, 2022, the court sentenced Wallace to the upper term of four years in prison for the count 1 conviction of co

2023(Ibid.) When an appellant’s brief “states only favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Ibid.; accord, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 951 .) These rules apply with equal force to self-represented litigants like McColm.7 (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 204-205.) “A self-represented party is to be treated like any

2023(Ibid.) When an appellant’s brief “states only favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Ibid.; accord, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 951 .) These rules apply with equal force to self-represented litigants like McColm.7 (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 204-205.) “A self-represented party is to be treated like any

2023(Ibid.) When an appellant’s brief “states only favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Ibid.; accord, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 951 .) These rules apply with equal force to self-represented litigants like McColm.7 (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 204-205.) “A self-represented party is to be treated like any

2023(Ibid.) When an appellant’s brief “states only favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Ibid.; accord, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 951 .) These rules apply with equal force to self-represented litigants like McColm.7 (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 204-205.) “A self-represented party is to be treated like any

2023(Ibid.) When an appellant’s brief “states only favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Ibid.; accord, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 951 .) These rules apply with equal force to self-represented litigants like McColm.7 (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 204-205.) “A self-represented party is to be treated like any

2023(Ibid.) When an appellant’s brief “states only favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Ibid.; accord, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 937, 951 .) These rules apply with equal force to self-represented litigants like McColm.7 (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at pp. 204-205.) “A self-represented party is to be treated like any

2022(See Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1018 (Sara M.) [“An appeal from the most recent order in a dependency matter may not challenge earlier orders for which the time for filing an appeal has passed.”].) 11 Undesignated rule citations are to the California Rules of Court. 14 [Citation.] . . . [R]eview of findings is normally obtained by appeal from the ensuing judgment or order.”12 In this context, the appealability of an order depends on whether it “substantially affected” the interests of a party, i.e., the order rendered him or her an “aggrieve[d]” party.

2022(See Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1018 (Sara M.) [“An appeal from the most recent order in a dependency matter may not challenge earlier orders for which the time for filing an appeal has passed.”].) 11 Undesignated rule citations are to the California Rules of Court. 14 [Citation.] . . . [R]eview of findings is normally obtained by appeal from the ensuing judgment or order.”12 In this context, the appealability of an order depends on whether it “substantially affected” the interests of a party, i.e., the order rendered him or her an “aggrieve[d]” party.

2025In making these findings on its own accord, the trial court erroneously looked beyond the permitted 4 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 6 “bare fact” of defendant’s prior convictions and their “elements.” (Wiley, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1086; see also Lynch, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 757 [“the facts supporting every aggravating circumstance upon which the trial court relies to ‘justify’ imposition of the upper term must be properly proven as [§ 1170, subd. (b)(2)] requires”].) Where, as here, a trial court deprives a defendant of a jury trial on aggravating facts

2025What errors (if any) in the abstracts of judgment require correction?” Section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) provides that, in selecting a term of imprisonment, a trial court “may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.” Notwithstanding this rule, a “court may conside

2024(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a);2 § 224.2, subd. (a).) “Inquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b)(2).) “Extended family members” include “a person who has reached 2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 3 the age of eighteen and who is the Indian child’s grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or sister, brother-in-law or s

2022(In re Noreen G., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1385 .) 2 We further note that Probate Code section 1516.5, subdivision (d), provides: “This section does not apply to . . . any Indian child.” 3 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 4 Finally, maternal grandmother argues any error was harmless because her counsel substantially complied with the requirements and intent of the ICWA.

2016(Rule 5.635(e)(2) & (3); B.C., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1311-1312.) 6 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 8.

2015(B.C., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311, fn. 3 .) 5 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

2026(Walker, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1036.) Rather, the court retained discretion to determine whether countervailing factors — other than public safety — “ ‘nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance[s], such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice,’ ” which is what it did here.

2026While sentencing courts may rely on many factors, “only a single aggravating circumstance is required to impose consecutive sentences.” (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 452, 469 (Leon).) Courts can rely on the fact that there were multiple victims when deciding to impose consecutive sentences.

2026(See K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 875 , 882; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).)4 Therefore, if “judgment was entered at the time of filing of a notice of appeal from [an] order” denying a motion to vacate a default, “the notice may be construed to refer to the judgment thereby permitting review of the order.” (Winter, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 682 ; see Jade K., supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 1466 ; rule 8.104(d) [a notice of appeal is 4 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 7 valid if “filed after judgment is rendered but before it

2026(See People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364 (Voit) [“In order to appeal after a conviction by plea of guilty or nolo contendere, a defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court”]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)4.) This requirement must be “applied in a strict manner.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 .) But no certificate of probable cause is required for an appeal based on or from: “(A) The denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5; [¶] (B) The sentence or other matters occurring after the reflect

2026(See People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364 (Voit) [“In order to appeal after a conviction by plea of guilty or nolo contendere, a defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court”]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)4.) This requirement must be “applied in a strict manner.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 .) But no certificate of probable cause is required for an appeal based on or from: “(A) The denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5; [¶] (B) The sentence or other matters occurring after the reflect