People v. Cromer

29 Citing briefs

  1. IN RE R.V.

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed March 10, 2014

    Another key factor in determining the standard of review is whether the trial court makesan individual-specific decision or onelikely to have precedential value. (Ault, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1267; Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 895, 901.) Determinations that are reviewed de novo, such as whatconstitutes “in custody” or a “reasonable search” provide guidance in 36 future situations.

  2. IN RE R.V.

    Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed May 12, 2014

    This court stated in Cromer that competencyto standtrial entails a “first-person vantage”for the trial court. (Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 901.) Moreover, minor’s argumentignoresthe fact that in cases where the experttestifies as to his conclusions from that out-of-court evaluation, the juvenile court must evaluate the credibility of the expert (as well as the credibility of any other witness including, perhaps, the minor himself) from a first-person vantage.

  3. IN RE R.V.

    Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed June 30, 2014

    19 Another key factor in determining the standard ofreview is whether the trial court makes an individual-specific decision or one likely to have precedential value. (Ault, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1267; Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 895, 901.) Determinations that are reviewed de novo, such as whatconstitutes “in custody” or a “reasonable search” provide guidance in future situations.

  4. IN RE J.G.

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed July 21, 2017

    Forfeiture and the applicability of section 742.16 are legal questions, which this Court reviews de novo. (See People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Ca l.4th 889, 894.) Somechallengesto restitution orders are forfeited if they are not raised below.

  5. PEOPLE v. CORPENING

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed February 11, 2016

    “Although the question of whether defendant harbored a ‘single intent’ within the meaning of section 654 is generally a 11 factual one, the applicability of the statute to conceded facts is a question of law.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335; see also Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 893-894 [de novo review appropriate “wherehistorical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and theissue is . .. whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated”]; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 730 [de novo review of denial of motion to suppress “insofaras the trial court’s underlying decision entails a measurement of the facts against the law”].) Both of the issues raised in this challenge fall into the second category.

  6. HARRIS v. S.C. (PEOPLE )

    Petitioner’s Petition for Review

    Filed December 28, 2015

    1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 See section 1192.7, subdivision (b) for a definition of plea bargaining. A. Standard of Review Theissue here is one of law, and therefore the review is de novo. (People v. Cromer(2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 893-894.) B. Section 1170.

  7. MANRIQUEZ

    Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

    Filed January 10, 2008

    CT 6. Before the videotaped testimony could be admitted, the Prosecutor had the burden of proving that he had exercised "reasonable diligence" to try to procure Contreras' attendance, Evid. Code § 240(a)(5), which included demonstrating that he had acted in "good faith" to try to secure her attendance, People v. Jackson, 28 Cal. 3d 264, 312 (1980), overruled on other grounds by People v. Cromer, 24 Cal. 4th 889 (2001). Moreover, when a witness' testimony is "deemed 'critical' or 'vital' to the prosecution's case" — as it was here, given that only Contreras testified to having seen Petitioner holding a gun at the Las Playas crime scene, CT 13- 18, 33 — the prosecution "must take reasonable precautions to prevent the witness from disappearing," People v. Hovey, 44 Cal. 3d 543, 564 (1988) (citing People v. Louis, 42 Cal. 3d 969, 989-91 (1986)).

  8. PEOPLE v. PEREZ

    Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed July 10, 2017

    37 et seq.) The People’s argumentis without merit. A. The Reviewing Court Defers to Factual Findings So Long as They Are Supported By Substantial Evidence Respondent does not disagree that the legal question in Part I of this brief is reviewed de novo by the reviewing court. (See Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1327, 1332; Southern California Edison Co. v. State Board ofEqualization (1972) 7 Cal.3d 652, 659, fn. 8; see People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 894.) Where an issue concernsthe interpretation of a statute and its applicability to a given situation, this is a question of law that the reviewing court considers independently. (Goodmanv.

  9. HARRIS v. S.C. (PEOPLE )

    Petitioner’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed March 24, 2016

    The issues presented are purely legal and are subject to independent, de novo review. (People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 893-894.) I PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Proposition 47, a voter initiative, is construed in the same manneras statutes enacted by the Legislature.

  10. SAN BUENAVENTURA, CITY OF v. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

    Appellant, City of San Buenaventura, Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed October 19, 2015

    Review of factual findings on conflicting evidence, however,is for substantial evidence. (People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 994.) But, if a trial decision did not turn on disputedfacts, de novo review is appropriate.