claim of structural error in California

2024“States are free to apply their own harmless error rules to errors of state law” (Sivongxxay, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 178 ), and, absent an error of the foregoing type or a federal constitutional error,4 we generally evaluate a claim of state statutory error under the Watson harmless error test (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973 , citing Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 ; accord, Sivongxxay, supra, at pp. 178–179).

2024“States are free to apply their own harmless error rules to errors of state law” (Sivongxxay, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 178 ), and, absent an error of the foregoing type or a federal constitutional error, 4 we generally evaluate a claim of state statutory error under the Watson harmless error test (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973 , citing Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 ; accord, Sivongxxay, supra, at pp. 178–179).

2024“States are free to apply their own harmless error rules to errors of state law” (Sivongxxay, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 178 ), and, absent an error of the foregoing type or a federal constitutional error,4 we generally evaluate a claim of state statutory error under the Watson harmless error test (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973 , citing Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 ; accord, Sivongxxay, supra, at pp. 178–179).

2024“States are free to apply their own harmless error rules to errors of state law” (Sivongxxay, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 178 ), and, absent an error of the foregoing type or a federal constitutional error,4 we generally evaluate a claim of state statutory error under the Watson harmless error test (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973 , citing Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 ; accord, Sivongxxay, supra, at pp. 178–179).

2024(People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 ; accord, People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 , 424–425.) Neither the analysis nor the concerns raised in Falcon are as limited as the majority suggests, however, and I do not join in that position. also does not involve an unauthorized sentence claim (Falcon, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 942–943, review granted; see In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130 [“an unauthorized sentence or one in excess of jurisdiction is a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case’ ”]), or a claim of structural

2024(People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 ; accord, People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 , 424–425.) Neither the analysis nor the concerns raised in Falcon are as limited as the majority suggests, however, and I do not join in that position. also does not involve an unauthorized sentence claim (Falcon, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 942–943, review granted; see In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130 [“an unauthorized sentence or one in excess of jurisdiction is a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case’ ”]), or a claim of structural

2020Alleged Error Under McCoy v. Louisiana Son raises a claim of structural error under McCoy v. Louisiana, supra, 138 S.Ct. 1500 .

2020Alleged Error Under McCoy v. Louisiana Son raises a claim of structural error under McCoy v. Louisiana, supra, 138 S.Ct. 1500 .

2023(People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 462-463 ; People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997 , 1032 [on appeal, the defendant must show error and prejudice].) In any event, if defendant had claimed prejudicial error, we would reject it.