public place violation in California

2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) Section 415, subdivision (1), imposes misdemeanor liability on “[a]ny person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.” “A challenge to fight is prohibited because such a challenge may provoke a violent response that endangers not only the challenger but any other persons who may be in the public place where the challenge occurs.

2020(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) Section 415, subdivision (1), imposes misdemeanor liability on “[a]ny person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.” “A challenge to fight is prohibited because such a challenge may provoke a violent response that endangers not only the challenger but any other persons who may be in the public place where the challenge occurs.

2022Because the statute is aimed at the inherent danger that a challenge will result in violence, it is irrelevant whether the challenger intended to actually cause a fight.” (In re Cesar V. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 989, 998 .) Here, the evidence demonstrated defendant and Mendoza jumped a fence from territory claimed by Hard Times into an area bordering the territory claimed by one 8 of their rival gangs, Santa Nita.

2020Because the statute is aimed at the inherent danger that a challenge will result in violence, it is irrelevant whether the challenger intended to actually cause a fight.” (In re Cesar V. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 989, 998 .) 22 Here, the evidence demonstrated defendant and Mendoza jumped a fence from territory claimed by Hard Times into an area bordering the territory claimed by one of their rival gangs, Santa Nita.

2021(Flores, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 183 ; see People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1024 [criminal conspiracy requires proof of: an agreement between two or more people; who have the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense; the specific intent to commit that offense; and an overt act committed by one or more of the parties to the agreement for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy’s object].) Respondent does not argue that Flores was wrongly decided, and instead attempts to distinguish this case by characterizing the intended crime to be murder of the Cadillac’s oc

2009(See In re Manuel G., supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 821 ; People v. Garry (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 ].) The only suspected criminal activity suggested by the parties was Strider’s carrying of a loaded firearm in a public place in violation of section 12031.

1979The appellate department of the superior court in a published opinion reversed the judgment of conviction with directions to the trial court to set aside the plea of guilty on the ground that the record on appeal did not show a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel in that the “record must show that the defendant was advised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” citing as authority Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ].

1979The appellate department of the superior court in a published opinion reversed the judgment of conviction with directions to the trial court to set aside the plea of guilty on the ground that the record on appeal did not show a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel in that the “record must show that the defendant was advised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” citing as authority Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ].