Ayala claim in California

2017Indeed, this is exactly what the trial judge in Wood , supra , 39 Cal.App.3d 737 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 365 found, where a couple who could not qualify for a loan used a front buyer *1332 and then failed when they tried to argue that the *928 strawman financier they relied upon was not the true owner.

2017Indeed, this is exactly what the trial judge in Wood , supra , 39 Cal.App.3d 737 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 365 found, where a couple who could not qualify for a loan used a front buyer *1332 and then failed when they tried to argue that the *928 strawman financier they relied upon was not the true owner.

2026This self-defense theory, as the trial court found, was incompatible with Ayala’s defense of reasonable parental discipline.3 (See People v. Checketts (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1197 [“It is well settled that the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular defense ‘ “only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there 3 Ayala cites People v. Whitehurst (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1045 to support her argument that there was sufficient evidence for the instruction on reasonable parental discipline.

2025But in an in camera proceeding under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), the court separately denied Ayala’s motion to relieve his trial counsel.

2024Code, § 1191); (3) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Ayala’s motion to strike his prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 ; and (4) whether the court prejudicially 2 erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 (Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence), instead of CALCRIM No. 225 (Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State).

2024As the People point out, “ ‘[a] party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too 25 general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 671 .) However, a failure to object “does not prevent a defendant from challenging an instruction on appeal if the asserted error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 382; see § 1259.) “Instructions regarding the elements of the crime affect the substantial rig

2022(See Abdelsalam, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 666 [“if appellant had rejected the plea and insisted on a trial, although he ‘would for a period have retained a theoretical possibility of evading the conviction that rendered him deportable and excludable, it is equally true that a conviction following trial would have subjected him to the same immigration consequences.’ (In re Resendiz, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 254 )”].)5 Because we conclude that the trial court properly denied Ayala’s 5 motion on the merits, we need not reach of the issue of whether the motion was timely. 13 DISPOSITION The orde

2022There is also no indication that Ayala “had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.” (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 530 .) His declaration asserts in general terms that his attorney “did not speak with me about other alternative pleas or sentences that could have protected me from being deportable and inadmissible, or protected me from being placed in removal proceedings,” and that had he known of the immigration consequences of his plea, he “would have sought, through my attorney, to obtain an alternative disposition without any immigration consequences

2022(Blackledge v. Allison (1977) 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 .) To overcome those barriers, Ayala now asserts that he does not recall the prosecutor’s statements at the preliminary hearing, discussing his case with counsel, or telling the trial court that he understood that his plea may have immigration consequences.