PG X(Q) Presenting Claims On Appeal To The Reviewing Court.
PG X(Q)(1) Each Point In An Appellate Brief Must Be Stated In A Separate Heading.
California Rules of Court Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) requires that each point in a brief be stated under a separate heading. Accordingly, if an argument or appellate claim is not included under such a heading, the defendant may be found to have waived the claim of error. (See People v. Gray (2005) 37 C4th 168, 198 [an opening brief must support each legal point with “argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”]; People v. McElroy (2005) 126 CA4th 874, 883 n. 3; see alsoHeavenly Valley v. El Dorado County Board of Equalization (2000) 84 CA4th 1323, 1346.)
PG X(Q)(2) Appellate Claim Must Include Citation To Authority.
“Every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration. [Citation.]” (Eureka Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education (88) 199 CA3d 353, 369; see also Talbot v. Wake (77) 74 CA3d 428; [brief must contain citation to authority—otherwise point is waived]; see also Bartlett v. State of California (88) 199 CA3d 392, 401 [failure to discuss or cite authority for appellate contention treated as abandonment of the issue]; Conner v. Dart Transportation Service (76) 65 CA3d 320, 323.)
See FORECITE PG X(Q)(1).
PG X(Q)(3) Failure To Argue As Concession Of Point.
“Respondent’s failure to argue the point [prejudice] must be viewed as a concession that if error occurred, reversal is required.” (People v. Adams (83) 143 CA3d 970, 992; see also Stuard v. Stewart (9th Cir. 2005) 401 F3d 1064 [state waived default claim by merely alleging it in a conclusory contention].) “In any event it appears that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and that the appellants have so conceded by failure to argue the point on appeal.” [Citation.] (Talbot v. Wake (77) 74 CA3d 428; [brief must contain citation to authority — otherwise point is waived]; Eureka Teachers Assn. v. Bd. of Ed. (88) 199 CA3d 353, 369; Bartlett v. St. of California (88) 199 CA3d 392, 401; People v. Marshall (96) 13 C4th 799, 831.)
PG X(Q)(4) Appellate Court May Consider A Claim On Its Own Motion Even If Not Raised By Counsel.
The Appellate court “is undoubtedly at liberty to decide a case upon any points that its proper disposition may seem to require, whether taken by counsel or not.” (People v. Schoennauer (80) 103 CA3d 398, 406.)
PG X(Q)(5) Consideration Of “Moot” Issues.
“Court of appeal may consider ‘moot’ issue if “issue of public interest. . . .” (People v. Woodall (89) 209 CA3d 925, 932.)
PG X(Q)(6) Remand.
“Penal Code § 1260 provides this court with the power to order such a remand as follows: ‘The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense, or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.’ Hence this court has observed that: ‘A limited remand is appropriate under section 1260 to allow the trial court to resolve one or more factual issues affecting the validity of the judgment but distinct from the issues submitted to the jury, or for the exercise of any discretion that is vested by law in the trial court. [Citations.]’” (People v. Braxton (2004) 34 C4th 798, 818-819.)
