beginning inquiry in California

2024At the beginning of the hearing, stand-in counsel noted that Robles made a request under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute new counsel to represent him for purposes of his resentencing petition.

2024At the beginning of a hearing held on September 7, 2022, defense counsel informed the trial court that defendant “would like to Marsden2 me.” The court ordered a closed hearing, excluding everyone except defense counsel, defendant, and court staff. 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 . 3.

1990Rather, the court in Damian merely concluded that because the drafters used the term "shall," they must have intended the rule to have mandatory rather than directory effect. ( In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d at p. 938 .) In reaching its conclusion that proceedings before an attorney are void in the absence of a written stipulation, the court in Heather simply relied on its earlier holding in Damian. ( In re Heather P., supra, 203 Cal. App.3d at p. 1225 .) As the court in People v. McGee, supra, 19 Cal.3d 948 , made plain, use of "shall" in rule 244 should be the beginning of our analy

1990(In re Heather P., supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1225 .) As the court in People v. McGee, supra, 19 Cal.3d 948 , made plain, use of “shall” in rule 244 should be the beginning of our analysis rather than the end.

1990Rather, the court in Damian merely concluded that because the drafters used the term "shall," they must have intended the rule to have mandatory rather than directory effect. ( In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d at p. 938 .) In reaching its conclusion that proceedings before an attorney are void in the absence of a written stipulation, the court in Heather simply relied on its earlier holding in Damian. ( In re Heather P., supra, 203 Cal. App.3d at p. 1225 .) As the court in People v. McGee, supra, 19 Cal.3d 948 , made plain, use of "shall" in rule 244 should be the beginning of our analy

1990(In re Heather P., supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1225 .) As the court in People v. McGee, supra, 19 Cal.3d 948 , made plain, use of “shall” in rule 244 should be the beginning of our analysis rather than the end.

2026(People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36 , 46–48.) 7 interpretation of a statute . . . [citation], they should do so rarely, and only in ‘extreme cases’—those in which, as a matter of law, the Legislature did not intend the statute to have its literal effect . . . .” (Gorham Co., Inc. v. First Financial Ins.

2024(Verio Healthcare, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 1327 .) Third, Husband submits no authority to support his claim that the court erred in its treatment of the audiovisual evidence. (d) Husband contends the trial court denied him due process by proceeding with the hearing despite the failure to serve him with the DVRO request. 6 At the beginning of the hearing, Husband told the court: “I wanted to advise the Court that I was never served with the Respondent’s DV 100 or with the temporary restraining order.

2023(People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183 , 194 . . . .) . . . [¶] ‘Substantial compliance’ means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form. [Citations.] The essential inquiry is whether under the circumstances the policies underlying the statute were served. [Citation.] ‘“Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance[,] technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 140

2023(Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 , fn. omitted; Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 959 .) The initial version of former section 1170.95 permitted “a person with an existing conviction for felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the sentencing court to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she 3 In the July 5, 2022, reporter’s transcript, the court stated at the beginning of the hearing that appellant was not present but represented by counsel.

2023(Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 , fn. omitted; Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 959 .) The initial version of former section 1170.95 permitted “a person with an existing conviction for felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the sentencing court to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she 3 In the July 5, 2022, reporter’s transcript, the court stated at the beginning of the hearing that appellant was not present but represented by counsel.

2023(Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 , fn. omitted; Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 959 .) The initial version of former section 1170.95 permitted “a person with an existing conviction for felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the sentencing court to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she 3 In the July 5, 2022, reporter’s transcript, the court stated at the beginning of the hearing that appellant was not present but represented by counsel.

2023After citing to Perkins, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th 454 , which concerned the second element, “the issue that’s really being focused upon here,” the court provided its reasoning.

2023After citing to Perkins, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th 454 , which concerned the second element, “the issue that’s really being focused upon here,” the court provided its reasoning.

2023(People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183 , 194 . . . .) . . . [¶] ‘Substantial compliance’ means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form. [Citations.] The essential inquiry is whether under the circumstances the policies underlying the statute were served. [Citation.] ‘“Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance[,] technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 140

2022(People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1 , 20–23.) Analysis At the beginning of a hearing on July 30, 2021, the court told defendant it had seen his request for a Marsden hearing, “but because right now you are – criminal proceedings 6. have been suspended and you’ve been found incompetent, you can’t act as your own attorney.” The court made a similar statement later in the hearing, “I mean, if he’s incompetent they can’t really represent themselves, first of all, and they can’t have a Marsden.” These statements by the court do suggest a conflation of the issues of substituting counsel under Ma

2022Furthermore, plaintiff’s alleged motion to disqualify the judge based on a “permanent or temporary physical impairment” under section 170.1, subdivision (a)(7) lacks merit because the tentative ruling does not provide any evidence the judge was suffering from such an impairment as plaintiff argues in his appellate brief. 6 demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.” [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it

2021“A federal judgment ‘has the same effect in the courts of this state as it would have in a federal court.’ [Citation.]” (Younger v. Jensen (1980) 26 Cal.3d 397, 411 ; see also Rest.2d of Judgments § 87 [“Federal law determines the effects under the rules of res judicata of a judgment of a federal court.”].) “For judgments in diversity cases, federal law incorporates the rules of preclusion applied by the State in which the rendering court sits. [Citation.]” (Taylor v. Sturgell 17 (2008) 553 U.S. 880, 891, fn. 4 ; see also Semtek Intern.

2021We presume jurors are intelligent persons, capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions they are given. 28 (People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 95 ; People v. Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 915 .) We are not persuaded by Pena’s argument that, based on the instructional errors, the jury could have found him guilty even if it concluded he did not intend to commit any crime when he entered the duplex.

2021We presume jurors are intelligent persons, capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions they are given. 28 (People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 95 ; People v. Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 915 .) We are not persuaded by Pena’s argument that, based on the instructional errors, the jury could have found him guilty even if it concluded he did not intend to commit any crime when he entered the duplex.

2020(Ray, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134 ; Thirion, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at pp. 304-305; Breslin, supra, 152 Cal.App.2d at p. 786 .) No additional or different insurance would appear necessary by the imposition of the duty we have described here. 6 4.

2020(Ray, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134 ; Thirion, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at pp. 304-305; Breslin, supra, 152 Cal.App.2d at p. 786 .) No additional or different insurance would appear necessary by the imposition of the duty we have described here. 6 4.

2020(Ray, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134 ; Thirion, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at pp. 304-305; Breslin, supra, 152 Cal.App.2d at p. 786 .) No additional or different insurance would appear necessary by the imposition of the duty we have described here. 6 4.

2020(Ray, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134 ; Thirion, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at pp. 304-305; Breslin, supra, 152 Cal.App.2d at p. 786 .) No additional or different insurance would appear necessary by the imposition of the duty we have described here. 6 4.

2020(In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 621–624.) Thus, an incarcerated parent may waive his or her appearance, but the juvenile court may only adjudicate the petition if that parent has representation at the hearing.