evidence adduced hearing in California

1998(Id., at p. 929.) The court of appeal agreed: “ ‘A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary hearing, and counsel cannot effectively represent a client who does not understand the nature of the charges ... or who is unable to cooperate in [the] defense.’ [Citation.] Absent such confrontation and effective representation at the first preliminary hearing, defendant has been denied his substantial rights, and a commitment based on the evidence adduced at that hearing is unlawful. [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 930, quoting Chambers v. Municipal Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d

1998(Id., at p. 929.) The court of appeal agreed: “ ‘A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at a preliminary hearing, and counsel cannot effectively represent a client who does not understand the nature of the charges ... or who is unable to cooperate in [the] defense.’ [Citation.] Absent such confrontation and effective representation at the first preliminary hearing, defendant has been denied his substantial rights, and a commitment based on the evidence adduced at that hearing is unlawful. [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 930, quoting Chambers v. Municipal Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d

1971(Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ]; Val Strough Chevrolet Co. v. Bright, 269 Cal. App.2d 855, 860 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 363 ].) By the trial court’s refusal to issue the alternative writ based solely upon the petition, it impliedly held that the petition failed to state a cause of action.

1971(Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ]; Val Strough Chevrolet Co. v. Bright, 269 Cal. App.2d 855, 860 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 363 ].) By the trial court’s refusal to issue the alternative writ based solely upon the petition, it impliedly held that the petition failed to state a cause of action.

2006The evidence adduced at the hearing, examined in the light most favorable to the prevailing party (In re James M. (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 254, 265 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 222 ] (James M.)), is as follows.

2006The evidence adduced at the hearing, examined in the light most favorable to the prevailing party (In re James M. (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 254, 265 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 222 ] (James M.)), is as follows.

2026(In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1498 (Nadkarni).) Thus, the term “disturbing the peace of the other party” in Family Code section 6320 has been interpreted broadly to include not just physical abuse but also conduct that 5 “destroy[s] the mental or emotional calm” of that person. ( Nadkarni, supra, at p. 1498 .) The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Father “destroy[ed] personal property.” (Fam.

2026(In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1498 (Nadkarni).) Thus, the term “disturbing the peace of the other party” in Family Code section 6320 has been interpreted broadly to include not just physical abuse but also conduct that 5 “destroy[s] the mental or emotional calm” of that person. ( Nadkarni, supra, at p. 1498 .) The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Father “destroy[ed] personal property.” (Fam.

2023(Cf. In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 [custody and visitation orders reviewed for abuse of discretion].) We agree because, notwithstanding the evidence adduced at the hearing on his request, Father has not shown a significant change in circumstances warranting a change to the existing custody order.

2020As such, “[t]he reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that [R.F.] engaged in the acts with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying his own lust, passion or sexual desires.” (People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672, 681 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684-685, fn. 12 .) Citing In re Shannon T., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th 618 , R.F. contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the sexual battery allegation because the evidence adduced at the hearing did not show that R.F. touched K. “for the purpose of sexual abuse” and that

2018All findings of fact and recommendations shall be based solely on the evidence adduced at the hearing . . . .” (§ 48918, subd. (f)(1).) 29 the explanation is simply that it is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been corrected at the trial.’ [Citation.]” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 , original italics (Doers); see also Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 863 .) As stated by one court, if the forfeiture doctrine were not applied to claims unasserted at

2018All findings of fact and recommendations shall be based solely on the evidence adduced at the hearing . . . .” (§ 48918, subd. (f)(1).) 29 the explanation is simply that it is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been corrected at the trial.’ [Citation.]” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 , original italics (Doers); see also Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 863 .) As stated by one court, if the forfeiture doctrine were not applied to claims unasserted at

2018All findings of fact and recommendations shall be based solely on the evidence adduced at the hearing . . . .” (§ 48918, subd. (f)(1).) 29 the explanation is simply that it is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been corrected at the trial.’ [Citation.]” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 , original italics (Doers); see also Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 863 .) As stated by one court, if the forfeiture doctrine were not applied to claims unasserted at

2018(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133-1134 [objection to ambiguities in proposed statement of decision]; K.C.

2014See, e.g., Margarito v. State Athletic Commission, [1] 89 Cal.App.4th 159, 169-171 (2010); Berg v. Davi, 130 Cal.App.4th 223, 228-229 (2005).” 8 III.

2014We review defendants’ claims under federal constitutional standards (People v. Rogers (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1136, 1156, fn. 8 ), and use our independent judgment to determine whether the evidence adduced at the hearing on defendants’ section 1538.5 motion established that an arrest occurred when officers stopped defendants and whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed (People v. Butler (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 150, 159-160 ; People v. Rivera (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005-1006 ).

2014(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 [error is harmless when it is not reasonably probable a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached in the absence of the 24 statutory error].)11 The evidence adduced at the hearing shows that although Julio substantially complied with his case plan to the extent he was able, he did not make substantial progress in reestablishing his relationship with A.L., learning how to meet his son's needs and demonstrating he could overcome his substance abuse addiction.

2012(People v. Rios (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 584, 589 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 ].) As there was no trial in the case, this background is taken from the evidence adduced at the hearing on defendants’ suppression motion.

2012(People v. Rios (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 584, 589 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 ].) As there was no trial in the case, this background is taken from the evidence adduced at the hearing on defendants’ suppression motion.

2007It is not sufficient that the evidence might have weakened the prosecution case or presented a more difficult question for the judge or jury. [Citations.]’ (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 766 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 ].)” (In reAlcox (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 657, 670 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 491 ].) The evidence adduced at the hearing and endorsed by the referee tends to show Boyd had some hand in the murders, very possibly a primary role; that he lied when he testified he saw petitioner with Reilly in Steven Rice’s apartment early in the morning after the crimes; and that he probably lied

2007It is not sufficient that the evidence might have weakened the prosecution case or presented a more difficult question for the judge or jury. [Citations.]’ (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 766 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 ].)” (In reAlcox (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 657, 670 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 491 ].) The evidence adduced at the hearing and endorsed by the referee tends to show Boyd had some hand in the murders, very possibly a primary role; that he lied when he testified he saw petitioner with Reilly in Steven Rice’s apartment early in the morning after the crimes; and that he probably lied

2007It is not sufficient that the evidence might have weakened the prosecution case or presented a more difficult question for the judge or jury. [Citations.]’ (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 766 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 ].)” (In reAlcox (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 657, 670 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 491 ].) The evidence adduced at the hearing and endorsed by the referee tends to show Boyd had some hand in the murders, very possibly a primary role; that he lied when he testified he saw petitioner with Reilly in Steven Rice’s apartment early in the morning after the crimes; and that he probably lied

2007It is not sufficient that the evidence might have weakened the prosecution case or presented a more difficult question for the judge or jury. [Citations.]’ (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 766 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 ].)” (In reAlcox (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 657, 670 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 491 ].) The evidence adduced at the hearing and endorsed by the referee tends to show Boyd had some hand in the murders, very possibly a primary role; that he lied when he testified he saw petitioner with Reilly in Steven Rice’s apartment early in the morning after the crimes; and that he probably lied

1999(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ].) We shall continue to do so where appropriate in the remainder of this opinion. 18 In In re Pratt, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d 795 , we utilized the Black’s Law Dictionary ( 112 Cal.App.3d at p. 867, fn. 36 ) and the “FBI vernacular” meaning of informant (id. at p. 875) in rejecting Pratt’s contention that “Butler perjured himself when he denied during the trial that he worked for the FBI and was an informant for the L.A.P.D. or the FBI.” (Id. at p. 866.) The People argue that under the doctrine of

1999(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ].) We shall continue to do so where appropriate in the remainder of this opinion. 18 In In re Pratt, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d 795 , we utilized the Black’s Law Dictionary ( 112 Cal.App.3d at p. 867, fn. 36 ) and the “FBI vernacular” meaning of informant (id. at p. 875) in rejecting Pratt’s contention that “Butler perjured himself when he denied during the trial that he worked for the FBI and was an informant for the L.A.P.D. or the FBI.” (Id. at p. 866.) The People argue that under the doctrine of

1999(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ].) We shall continue to do so where appropriate in the remainder of this opinion. 18 In In re Pratt, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d 795 , we utilized the Black’s Law Dictionary ( 112 Cal.App.3d at p. 867, fn. 36 ) and the “FBI vernacular” meaning of informant (id. at p. 875) in rejecting Pratt’s contention that “Butler perjured himself when he denied during the trial that he worked for the FBI and was an informant for the L.A.P.D. or the FBI.” (Id. at p. 866.) The People argue that under the doctrine of

1999(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ].) We shall continue to do so where appropriate in the remainder of this opinion. 18 In In re Pratt, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d 795 , we utilized the Black’s Law Dictionary ( 112 Cal.App.3d at p. 867, fn. 36 ) and the “FBI vernacular” meaning of informant (id. at p. 875) in rejecting Pratt’s contention that “Butler perjured himself when he denied during the trial that he worked for the FBI and was an informant for the L.A.P.D. or the FBI.” (Id. at p. 866.) The People argue that under the doctrine of

1995"Accordingly, we consider only the evidence adduced at the hearing of the 1538.5 motion in the superior court. ( Wilder v. Superior Court [1979] 92 Cal. App.3d [90] at p. 94 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 494 ].)" ( People v. Neighbours (1990) 223 Cal. App.3d 1115, 1119-1120 [ 273 Cal. Rptr. 32 ].) The only testimony at the motion hearing in the superior court regarding cigarette smoking by the occupants of the vehicle occurred on cross-examination of Officer Smith: "Q Now, the individuals in the car were smoking cigarettes, were they not?

1995"Accordingly, we consider only the evidence adduced at the hearing of the 1538.5 motion in the superior court. ( Wilder v. Superior Court [1979] 92 Cal. App.3d [90] at p. 94 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 494 ].)" ( People v. Neighbours (1990) 223 Cal. App.3d 1115, 1119-1120 [ 273 Cal. Rptr. 32 ].) The only testimony at the motion hearing in the superior court regarding cigarette smoking by the occupants of the vehicle occurred on cross-examination of Officer Smith: "Q Now, the individuals in the car were smoking cigarettes, were they not?

1989(Gendron v. State Bar (1983) 35 Cal.3d 409, 420 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 590 , 673 P.2d 260 ].) If the evidence produced before the hearing panel shows the attorney has committed an ethical violation that was not charged in the original notice, the State Bar must *929 amend the notice to conform to the evidence adduced at the hearing.

1989(Gendron v. State Bar (1983) 35 Cal.3d 409, 420 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 590 , 673 P.2d 260 ].) If the evidence produced before the hearing panel shows the attorney has committed an ethical violation that was not charged in the original notice, the State Bar must *929 amend the notice to conform to the evidence adduced at the hearing.