Elliott error in California

2023In evaluating a defendant’s request to withdraw a Faretta waiver and reappoint counsel, the trial court may consider what are known as the Elliott factors (People v. Elliot (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 984 , 993-994).

2023In evaluating a defendant’s request to withdraw a Faretta waiver and reappoint counsel, the trial court may consider what are known as the Elliott factors (People v. Elliot (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 984 , 993-994).

2023(Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238 , 260-261 [mother’s “objections” to costs claimed in father’s memorandum of costs were the functional equivalent of a motion to tax costs, but father was nonetheless entitled to all claimed costs because mother did not raise her specific objections to father’s claimed costs in a timely manner].) Briggs also argues it was “unreasonable” for the court to require him to move to tax costs by December 1, 2021, because he served Elliott with a section 724.050 demand to acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment on 7 We note that Briggs did not pres

2023(Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238 , 260-261 [mother’s “objections” to costs claimed in father’s memorandum of costs were the functional equivalent of a motion to tax costs, but father was nonetheless entitled to all claimed costs because mother did not raise her specific objections to father’s claimed costs in a timely manner].) Briggs also argues it was “unreasonable” for the court to require him to move to tax costs by December 1, 2021, because he served Elliott with a section 724.050 demand to acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment on 7 We note that Briggs did not pres

2019Despite the adverse action, the court rejected Elliott's claim because it found no evidence "suggesting that this mistreatment was rooted in race discrimination." (Elliott, supra, 879 F.Supp.2d at p. 445 .) Absent evidence that the coach "favored black players over Elliott specifically and the other white players generally, or some other suggestion that [the coach's] animus toward Elliott was racially based, Elliott [did] not make a prima facie case of racial discrimination." (Ibid.)21 A similar result was reached in Heike—even if the White college basketball player showed that her coach "was

2019Despite the adverse action, the court rejected Elliott's claim because it found no evidence "suggesting that this mistreatment was rooted in race discrimination." ( Elliott , supra , 879 F.Supp.2d at p. 445.) Absent evidence that the coach "favored black players over Elliott specifically and the other white players generally, or some other suggestion that [the coach's] animus toward Elliott was racially based, Elliott [did] not make a prima facie case of racial discrimination." ( Ibid. ) 21 A similar result was reached in Heike -even if the White college basketball player showed that her coach

2023These include: “(1) defendant’s prior history in the substitution of counsel and in the desire to change from self-representation to counsel-representation, (2) the reasons set forth in the request, (3) the length and stage of the trial proceedings, (4) disruption or delay which reasonably might be expected to ensue from the granting of such motion, and (5) the likelihood of defendant’s effectiveness in defending against the charges if required to continue to act as his own attorney.” (Ibid.) On appeal, we need not consider whether the trial court correctly listed the Elliot factors or “whethe

2023These include: “(1) defendant’s prior history in the substitution of counsel and in the desire to change from self-representation to counsel-representation, (2) the reasons set forth in the request, (3) the length and stage of the trial proceedings, (4) disruption or delay which reasonably might be expected to ensue from the granting of such motion, and (5) the likelihood of defendant’s effectiveness in defending against the charges if required to continue to act as his own attorney.” (Ibid.) On appeal, we need not consider whether the trial court correctly listed the Elliot factors or “whethe

2019Despite the adverse action, the court rejected Elliott's claim because it found no evidence "suggesting that this mistreatment was rooted in race discrimination." (Elliott, supra, 879 F.Supp.2d at p. 445 .) Absent evidence that the coach "favored black players over Elliott specifically and the other white players generally, or some other suggestion that [the coach's] animus toward Elliott was racially based, Elliott [did] not make a prima facie case of racial discrimination." (Ibid.)21 A similar result was reached in Heike—even if the White college basketball player showed that her coach "was

2014Along with his reply brief, Hodrick filed objections to the Elliott and Diamond declarations and, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), and Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 497 , requested judicial notice of the minute order in Elliott’s criminal case, which indicated that at the preliminary hearing on April 29, 2010, on the complaint alleging Elliott’s violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), Elliott was “held to answer.” After hearing the parties’ oral argument on November 30, 2012, the trial court took the matter under submission.

2014(Carnes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 688, 694 , citation omitted [“‘Regardless of how the trial court reached its decision, it falls to us to examine the record de novo and independently determine whether that decision is correct’”].) As the trial court observed in its evidentiary rulings, although Elliott purported to dispute the majority of facts set forth in Hodrick’s separate statement (Fact Nos. 1-31, 33- 34, 39-40, 43, 56-66, 68-85, 88-89, 94-98, 101-104), he did so by citing to his own declaration, in which (for the most part) he repeatedly stated: “I do not know.”17 Consequ

2014(See Miller v. American Greetings Corp. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1061-1062 .) As we noted at the outset, “‘Reasonable cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the arresting officer would lead a reasonable person to have a strong suspicion of the arrestee’s guilt. [Citations.] This is an objective standard. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘It is the right to arrest that is being tested. . . .

1983(People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 126; People v. Maddox, supra, 67 Cal.2d 647, 652-653 ; People v. Cruz, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 317-326 .) The result was that appellant was obliged to represent himself on the basis of a few days’ preparation despite his claim (before jury selection) that he had neither the ability nor the preparation to do so effectively.

1983(People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 126; People v. Maddox, supra, 67 Cal.2d 647, 652-653 ; People v. Cruz, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 317-326 .) The result was that appellant was obliged to represent himself on the basis of a few days’ preparation despite his claim (before jury selection) that he had neither the ability nor the preparation to do so effectively.

1983(People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 126; People v. Maddox, supra, 67 Cal.2d 647, 652-653 ; People v. Cruz, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 317-326 .) The result was that appellant was obliged to represent himself on the basis of a few days’ preparation despite his claim (before jury selection) that he had neither the ability nor the preparation to do so effectively.

1983(People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 126; People v. Maddox, supra, 67 Cal.2d 647, 652-653 ; People v. Cruz, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 317-326 .) The result was that appellant was obliged to represent himself on the basis of a few days’ preparation despite his claim (before jury selection) that he had neither the ability nor the preparation to do so effectively.