remand for a new hearing in California

2024Our decision is limited to the facts and legal argument here: a situation where the People presented no evidence at all (indicating an error of inadvertence or a “technical defect[ ] in . . . proof” (People v. Morton (1953) 41 Cal.2d 536, 545 )), defendant did not object or otherwise alert the trial court to the absence of any evidentiary support for the criminal history representations made by the People,4 and defendant’s contention is solely that a remand for a new hearing would violate double jeopardy principles.

2024The disposition we shall adopt, however, works both ways: just as the People will have an opportunity to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior criminal conduct, defendant will have the opportunity to submit any mitigating evidence of the type mentioned by the trial court during the hearing from which this appeal is taken (e.g., his disciplinary history during the 30-plus years he has been in custody). 4 Though forfeiture principles do not foreclose defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for the trial court’s order (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596 ), we do be

2022(Target National Bank v. Rocha (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 9-10; Lensch, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 676 .) Ballard argues that this is not a case in which inadmissible evidence was offered and considered by the court (referee); instead, Balquist failed to offer any evidence at all.

2022(Target National Bank v. Rocha (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 9-10; Lensch, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 676 .) Ballard argues that this is not a case in which inadmissible evidence was offered and considered by the court (referee); instead, Balquist failed to offer any evidence at all.

2016DCFS thus states: “Here, appearing no basis for a finding of unfitness or detriment, DCFS concedes the juvenile court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights.” The agency concedes the appropriateness of reversing the juvenile court’s findings and orders terminating Christian’s parental rights, and a remand for a new hearing to determine the appropriateness of placing Esther with him. 12 compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law. [Citations.] Specifically, the question becomes whether the appellant’s evidence was (1) “uncontradicted and unimpeached” and (2) “of such a

2010The Supreme Court rejected this distinction: “Whether the appeal seeks a ruling by the appellate court that the guilty plea was invalid, or merely seeks an order for further proceedings aimed at obtaining a ruling by the trial court that the plea was invalid, the primary purpose of section 1237.5 is met by requiring a certificate of probable cause for an appeal whose puipose is, ultimately, to invalidate a plea of guilty or no contest.” 3 (Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 682 .) We invited counsel to file supplemental briefs to discuss Johnson, which was decided after briefing closed in this c

2009Defendant urges us to adopt the rule of Osorio, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 183 .