case for an evidentiary hearing in California

2025(See People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 7 [legal conclusion based on undisputed facts is reviewed de novo]; People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 300 [“determination, based upon undisputed facts, constituted a legal conclusion which is subject to independent review on appeal”]; People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1021 [de novo review found appropriate because, “[h]ere, the trial court did not take testimony.

2025(See People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 7 [legal conclusion based on undisputed facts is reviewed de novo]; People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 300 [“determination, based upon undisputed facts, constituted a legal conclusion which is subject to independent review on appeal”]; People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1021 [de novo review found appropriate because, “[h]ere, the trial court did not take testimony.

2025(See People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 7 [legal conclusion based on undisputed facts is reviewed de novo]; People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 300 [“determination, based upon undisputed facts, constituted a legal conclusion which is subject to independent review on appeal”]; People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1021 [de novo review found appropriate because, “[h]ere, the trial court did not take testimony.

2014Rivera raises four contentions: (1) the trial court erroneously failed to remove the entire San Diego County Public Defender's Office (hereafter the public defender's office) from his case when it granted his pretrial motion to replace his court-appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden); (2) this court should either find the current version of the SVPA violates his constitutional right to equal protection under the law notwithstanding this court's "badly flawed" decision in People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1330 (McKee II), which this court should not f

2014EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM Rivera next contends this court should either (1) find the current version of the SVPA violates his constitutional right to equal protection under the law notwithstanding this court's "badly flawed" decision in McKee II, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at page 1330 , which he asserts this court should not follow in this case; or (2) remand this case for an evidentiary hearing "to determine whether the People can establish, under an appropriate application of the scrutiny standard, that California's current SVP law is constitutional." )!

1989Because this case involves a question of public interest which is likely to recur yet evade review, we conclude it is appropriate to reach the issues raised by Manuel. ( In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [ 89 Cal. Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 ], quoting County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 302 , 382 P.2d 342 , 6 A.L.R.3d 555 ]; In re Arias (1986) 42 Cal.3d 667, 673, fn. 1 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 505 , 725 P.2d 664 ].) [3] The form advised Manuel of his right to voluntarily return to his country of origin, to speak to a lawyer, to speak to a representative of the cons

1989Because this case involves a question of public interest which is likely to recur yet evade review, we conclude it is appropriate to reach the issues raised by Manuel. ( In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [ 89 Cal. Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 ], quoting County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 302 , 382 P.2d 342 , 6 A.L.R.3d 555 ]; In re Arias (1986) 42 Cal.3d 667, 673, fn. 1 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 505 , 725 P.2d 664 ].) [3] The form advised Manuel of his right to voluntarily return to his country of origin, to speak to a lawyer, to speak to a representative of the cons

1989Because this case involves a question of public interest which is likely to recur yet evade review, we conclude it is appropriate to reach the issues raised by Manuel. ( In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [ 89 Cal. Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 ], quoting County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 302 , 382 P.2d 342 , 6 A.L.R.3d 555 ]; In re Arias (1986) 42 Cal.3d 667, 673, fn. 1 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 505 , 725 P.2d 664 ].) [3] The form advised Manuel of his right to voluntarily return to his country of origin, to speak to a lawyer, to speak to a representative of the cons

1989Because this case involves a question of public interest which is likely to recur yet evade review, we conclude it is appropriate to reach the issues raised by Manuel. ( In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [ 89 Cal. Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 ], quoting County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 302 , 382 P.2d 342 , 6 A.L.R.3d 555 ]; In re Arias (1986) 42 Cal.3d 667, 673, fn. 1 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 505 , 725 P.2d 664 ].) [3] The form advised Manuel of his right to voluntarily return to his country of origin, to speak to a lawyer, to speak to a representative of the cons

1989Because this case involves a question of public interest which is likely to recur yet evade review, we conclude it is appropriate to reach the issues raised by Manuel. ( In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [ 89 Cal. Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 ], quoting County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 302 , 382 P.2d 342 , 6 A.L.R.3d 555 ]; In re Arias (1986) 42 Cal.3d 667, 673, fn. 1 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 505 , 725 P.2d 664 ].) [3] The form advised Manuel of his right to voluntarily return to his country of origin, to speak to a lawyer, to speak to a representative of the cons

1989Because this case involves a question of public interest which is likely to recur yet evade review, we conclude it is appropriate to reach the issues raised by Manuel. ( In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23 [ 89 Cal. Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 ], quoting County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804 [ 31 Cal. Rptr. 302 , 382 P.2d 342 , 6 A.L.R.3d 555 ]; In re Arias (1986) 42 Cal.3d 667, 673, fn. 1 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 505 , 725 P.2d 664 ].) [3] The form advised Manuel of his right to voluntarily return to his country of origin, to speak to a lawyer, to speak to a representative of the cons

1979(Dis. opn., post, p. 438.) Interestingly, after enunciating the standard in DeCoster , Judge Bazelon did not reverse the conviction but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing where proof could be adduced as to counsel's explanations for his apparent inadequacy. ( DeCoster, supra, at pp. 1204-1205.) Nonetheless, the dissent itself properly characterizes the DeCoster standard as the holding of that case.

1979(DeCoster, supra, at pp. 1204-1205.) Nonetheless, the dissent itself properly characterizes the DeCoster standard as the holding of that case.