petition without an evidentiary hearing in California

2026(In re G.B.(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157 [“[T]he parent must sufficiently allege both a change in circumstances or new evidence and the promotion of the child’s best interests,” and “[a] prima facie case is made if the allegations demonstrate that these two elements are supported by probable cause.”]; In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181 , 191 10 [“[S]ection 388 contemplates that a petitioner make a prima facie showing of both elements to trigger an evidentiary hearing on the petition.”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d)(1) [A juvenile court may deny a petition under section 388,

2013(Rule 5.570(a).) However, if the juvenile court finds that even so construed the petition fails to make a prima facie case as to either or both tests under section 388, the court may deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing. (§ 388, subd. (d); rule 5.570(d), (h)(2); In re Justice P., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 189 .) We review a ruling denying a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion.

2023(In 15 re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 (Marilyn H.) “[I]f the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition.” (In re Zachary G., supra, at p. 806 ; § 388, subd. (d) [“If it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order, . . . the court shall order that a hearing be held . . . .”].) If, for instance, the parent makes a prima facie showing of changed

2022(In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) If, for instance, the parent makes a prima facie showing of changed circumstances, the juvenile court can 15 still deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing if the parent fails to make a prima facie showing that the relief sought would promote the child’s best interests.

2025(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233 ; People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 707 ; People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956 , 973; Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 47–48, 52.) If the trial court erroneously denies the petition without an evidentiary hearing, the error is harmless if the defendant is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. ( Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 973–974.) II.

2024After the parties have had an opportunity to submit briefings, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) The court may deny a petition without an evidentiary hearing where the record establishes the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law. ( Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 970–972.) If the defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c), (d)(3).)3 We review the challenged order de novo.

2023(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-190 .) “‘A “prima facie” showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited.’” (In re Josiah S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 403, 418 .) Consequently, section 388 petitions with general, conclusory allegations do not suffice.

2022(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-190 ; see In re Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478 ; In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 322-323 .) “‘A “prima facie” showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited.’” (In re Josiah S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 403, 418 .) Consequently, section 388 petitions with general, conclusory allegations do not suffice.

2024(Rule 5.570(a); In re Daijah T., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 .) “ ‘A “prima facie” showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited.’ ” (In re Daijah T., supra, at p. 673 .) Nonetheless, if the juvenile court finds that even so construed the 2 Further undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 4 petition fails to make a prima facie case of changed circumstances and best interests under section 388, the court may deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

2024(Rule 5.570(a); In re Daijah T., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 673 .) “ ‘A “prima facie” showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited.’ ” (In re Daijah T., supra, at p. 673 .) Nonetheless, if the juvenile court finds that even so construed the 2 Further undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 4 petition fails to make a prima facie case of changed circumstances and best interests under section 388, the court may deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

2025(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233 ; People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 707 ; People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956 , 973; Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 47–48, 52.) If the trial court erroneously denies the petition without an evidentiary hearing, the error is harmless if the defendant is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. ( Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 973–974.) II.

2023(Ibid., quoting People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 .) In this case, that would require proof that, in convicting appellant of second degree murder, the jury necessarily determined he personally harbored malice and did not convict appellant based on a theory of imputed malice.

2025This court reversed because the jury’s special circumstance findings were made before our Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “major participant” and “reckless indifference to human life” in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 and because weighing of the evidence is not permitted at the prima facie stage.

2023(People v. Marsh (Aug. 11, 2021, G059355) [nonpub. opn.] (Marsh II).) “The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing after concluding the jury in Marsh’s trial had necessarily found he was either the actual killer of the two victims or had been a major participant in the robbery/burglary who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Marsh II, supra, G059355.) Relying on People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 , (Banks), and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 , (Clark), which were decided after Marsh’s 1994 trial and clarified the requirements for determining wheth

2025This court reversed because the jury’s special circumstance findings were made before our Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “major participant” and “reckless indifference to human life” in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 and because weighing of the evidence is not permitted at the prima facie stage.

2023(People v. Marsh (Aug. 11, 2021, G059355) [nonpub. opn.] (Marsh II).) “The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing after concluding the jury in Marsh’s trial had necessarily found he was either the actual killer of the two victims or had been a major participant in the robbery/burglary who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Marsh II, supra, G059355.) Relying on People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 , (Banks), and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 , (Clark), which were decided after Marsh’s 1994 trial and clarified the requirements for determining wheth

2025(See In re Heather P. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 886, 891 ; see also In re Jeremy W., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1413-1414.) II ICWA Father contends the juvenile court failed to comply with the provisions of the ICWA when it neglected to obtain input from the tribal representative and to consider the preferred permanent plan of tribal customary adoption.

2025(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233 ; People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 707 ; People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956 , 973; Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 47–48, 52.) If the trial court erroneously denies the petition without an evidentiary hearing, the error is harmless if the defendant is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. ( Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 973–974.) II.

2024(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)” (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 449 .) For the remainder of this opinion, we will refer to this statutory provision as section 1172.6. 3 Ontiveros timely appealed.

2023(Id. at p. 1021.) In Schell’s appeal from the federal district court’s summary denial of his habeas petition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held, “[A] state trial court has no discretion to ignore an indigent defendant’s timely motion to relieve an appointed attorney.” (Schell, supra, 218 F.3d at p. 1025 , italics added.) Because the trial court erred by failing to consider Schell’s Marsden motion at all, the Ninth Circuit remanded the habeas petition “to the district court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) the nature and extent of the conflict between S

2022(People v. Reynolds (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 .) There are varying degrees of deference within the abuse of discretion standard of review.

2022(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-190 ; see In re Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478 ; In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 322-323 .) “‘A “prima facie” showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited.’” (In re Josiah S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 403, 418 .) Consequently, section 388 petitions with general, conclusory allegations do not suffice.

2016(In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 200 .) Summary denial of the petition without an evidentiary hearing did not violate mother’s due process rights.

2015(See Estate of Bennett (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307-1308 ; Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 673 .) And, without having made an evidentiary proffer, he cannot now criticize the trial court for ruling on the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

2015(See Estate of Bennett (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307-1308 ; Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 673 .) And, without having made an evidentiary proffer, he cannot now criticize the trial court for ruling on the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

2015(Estate of Cairns (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 937, 951 .) Moreover, it is the appellant’s burden to show error on appeal, and William’s briefs make no argument and identify no evidence that suggest the trial court erred in denying his requests for an evidentiary hearing.