Chapter 5 - §6. Appellate review

JurisdictionUnited States

§6. Appellate review

§6.1. Factual findings. A trial court's factual findings, express and implied, are reviewed under a substantial-evidence standard. See Robey v. Superior Ct. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1218, 1223; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 719. When the express or implied findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, they will be upheld. See People v. Flores (2d Dist.2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 978, 988 (pet. granted 4-21-21; No. S267522); People v. Jones (3d Dist.2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 735, 741. All presumptions are drawn in favor of the trial court's ruling. See Flores, 60 Cal.App.5th at 988.

§6.2. Conclusions of law. A trial court's conclusions of law are subject to independent review. See Robey v. Superior Ct. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1218, 1223; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 719. In reviewing the conclusions of law, the appellate court will determine if the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment based on the facts as the trial court found them, assuming those facts were supported by substantial evidence. See People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 924.

§6.3. Effect of error. If the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion to suppress, the appellate court will apply the harmless-error standard. See People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1104, 1129; People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1250. Under this standard, a California court considering the issue on direct appeal must reverse the judgment of conviction unless it is convinced, based on the entire record, that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v. Jackson (2d Dist.2005) 129...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT