defendant forfeits any claim in California

2024(People v. Wilson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-147 .) Trial delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic are not inherently violative of a defendant’s speedy trial rights. 18 (Stanley v. Superior Court (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 164 , 166 [“[t]he severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact it has had within the state independently supported the trial court’s finding of good cause to continue . . . defendant’s trial.”]; accord, Hernandez-Valenzuela v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1108 , 1129-1135; Elias v. Superior Court (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 926 , 941-942.) “To warrant dismissal . . . the defendan

2024(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 877 ; People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 350 .) Here, in discussing the first jury note, defense counsel argued that the language in CALCRIM No. 401 following the fourth element of aiding and abetting provided “a clear answer to [the jury’s] question of whether aiding and abetting is a general or specific intent crime.” The trial court’s response referred the jury to that language.

2024(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 877 ; People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 350 .) Here, in discussing the first jury note, defense counsel argued that the language in CALCRIM No. 401 following the fourth element of aiding and abetting provided “a clear answer to [the jury’s] question of whether aiding and abetting is a general or specific intent crime.” The trial court’s response referred the jury to that language.

2021Analysis “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, ... whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, ... are principals in any crime so committed.” (§ 31, italics added; People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1122 .) Guilt as an aider and abettor is guilt “based on a combination of the direct perpetrator’s acts and the aider and abettor’s own acts and own mental state.” (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117 (McCoy).) Under the law in effect at the time of the murder here, an aider and abettor could be convicted for secon

2020In making his argument against forfeiture, Jinkins contended that People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , which held that a defendant forfeits any challenge to a trial court’s discretionary sentencing determinations that the defendant 5 failed to raise in the trial court, had prospective application only, and was decided after he was sentenced.

2020(Id. at p. 1172.) The same division that decided Dueñas has since clarified that, at the ability to pay hearing, the defendant bears the burden of showing his or her inability to pay, and the court “must consider all relevant factors,” including “potential prison pay during the period of incarceration to be served by the defendant.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) The Courts of Appeal have reached different conclusions regarding the substantive merits of the Dueñas opinion, as well as the question of whether a defendant forfeits any claim of error by failing to raise th

2015(See Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 499 .) Arguing that the robbery “was a relatively minor offense that resulted in the theft of less than $1,200” in which he made no explicit threats to use the gun against the victim and nobody was injured, defendant maintains that a sentence of 115 10 years to life for a 29 year old based on the instant charges “exceeds the bounds of reason.” As our high court has noted, “any failure on the part of a defendant to invite the court to dismiss under section 1385 following Romero waives or forfeits his or her right to raise the issue on appeal. [Citation.]” (

2015A defendant’s failure to object to a trial court’s proposed response to a jury question forfeits any claim of error and may be regarded as showing “tacit approval of the trial court’s decision.” (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 430 .) More importantly, “[w]here . . . appellant consents to the trial court’s response to jury questions during deliberations, any claim of error with respect thereto is waived.” (People v. Bohana (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 360, 373 .) Finally, where the defendant both suggests and consents to the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry, the defendant forfeits an

2015(People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 189 .) 18 Cal.App.4th 339 , 367.) CALCRIM No. 372, the instruction defendant argues should have been given, contains the same instruction.

2015A defendant’s failure to object to a trial court’s proposed response to a jury question forfeits any claim of error and may be regarded as showing “tacit approval of the trial court’s decision.” (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 430 .) More importantly, “[w]here . . . appellant consents to the trial court’s response to jury questions during deliberations, any claim of error with respect thereto is waived.” (People v. Bohana (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 360, 373 .) Finally, where the defendant both suggests and consents to the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry, the defendant forfeits an

2015(People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1193 .) Here, while defense counsel did state that the legal answer to both parts of the jury’s question was “no,” he did not suggest that the court’s response to the jury be “no.” On the contrary, when the prosecutor made the suggestion that the court should refer the jury back to the jury instructions, defense counsel did not argue for a different response, but instead stated, “That’s often times [sic] the response.” More importantly, after defense counsel told the court referring the jury back to the jury instructions was “often times [sic] the re

2015(See Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 499 .) Arguing that the robbery “was a relatively minor offense that resulted in the theft of less than $1,200” in which he made no explicit threats to use the gun against the victim and nobody was injured, defendant maintains that a sentence of 115 10 years to life for a 29 year old based on the instant charges “exceeds the bounds of reason.” As our high court has noted, “any failure on the part of a defendant to invite the court to dismiss under section 1385 following Romero waives or forfeits his or her right to raise the issue on appeal. [Citation.]” (

2015(See Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 499 .) Arguing that the robbery “was a relatively minor offense that resulted in the theft of less than $1,200” in which he made no explicit threats to use the gun against the victim and nobody was injured, defendant maintains that a sentence of 115 10 years to life for a 29 year old based on the instant charges “exceeds the bounds of reason.” As our high court has noted, “any failure on the part of a defendant to invite the court to dismiss under section 1385 following Romero waives or forfeits his or her right to raise the issue on appeal. [Citation.]” (

2015(See, e.g., People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 1056 .) 23 In this case, the relevant original instructions were full and complete in themselves.

2015(People v. Waidla, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 745-746.) 12 A defendant forfeits any claim of error when he or she consents to the court’s response to a jury question.