crucial part analysis in California

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

1984City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 , — (1984).” ( Clark, supra, 468 U.S. at p. —, fn. 8 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 230 ]; see also Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507, 520 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 , 96 S.Ct. 1029 ]; In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845, 849 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 434 P.2d 353 ]; Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) 312 U.S. 569, 576 [ 85 L.Ed. 1049, 1053-1054 , 61 S.Ct. 762 , 133 A.L.R. 1396 ]; Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 536, 554 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 471, 483-484 , 85 S.Ct. 453 ].) We observe that the closure of public parks during the late night hours also serves incidentally to deter

2025A currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short timeframe might be found by the trial court to pose a greater danger to the public than a defendant who is currently dangerous but who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly.” (Ibid.) The Gonzalez court found that People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057 , relied on by Norsworthy, “although arising under a different sentencing statute, supports [its] interpretation of the plain meaning of section 1385, subdivision (c)(2).” (Gonzalez, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 228.) The defendant in Willi

2025(Ibid.; see also § 3041, subd. (b)(1) [“The panel or the board, sitting en banc, shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that 9 consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual”].) Gonzalez relied on this court’s decision in Williams, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th 1057 , which arose under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 and section 1170.126.

2025(People v. Sanotri (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 122, 126 [“ ‘ “ ‘error must be affirmatively shown’ ” ’ ”].) He is correct that neither the court nor the parties expressly discussed the “change to appellant’s release date” that would result from granting the relief he sought, or the fact that “his release from prison [would be] contingent on review by the Board of Parole Hearings.” But on appeal we must indulge all intendments and presumptions “ ‘ “ ‘on matters as to which the record is silent’ ” ’ ” in favor of the trial court’s order.

2025A currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short time frame might be found by the trial court to pose a greater danger to the public than a defendant who is currently dangerous but who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly.” (Gonzalez, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 228, italics omitted.) “Further, an inquiry into whether public safety will be endangered by the dismissal of an enhancement for a defendant serving a lengthy indeterminate sentence should also take into account that the defendant’s release from prison is contingent on review by the