So, what are the standards of review?

1.  Independent (or “de novo”) review:  This ground is raised when the issue is one of law and does not depend on disputed facts.  As a result, the appellate court examines the question de novo without giving any deference to the trial court.  “That is not to say the appellate court disregards the trial court’s rationale for its decision.  It often is most helpful and illustrates the important role trial courts play in shaping the law.  We are not averse to using all the help we can get.”  (People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1018.)  The usefulness of the trial court’s reasoning may be that it acts as a checklist for the reviewing court. 

    Appeals based on this standard usually have a better chance for success because the reviewing court does not filter its decision by considering the reasoning of the trial court.  (That isn’t to say the court has no interest in why and how the trial court reached its decision, but it simply isn’t bound by what the trial court decided.)

    The appellate court may believe it is in the same, if not better, position to determine questions of law.  After all, the appellate court has the benefit of a collective intellect and more resources for conducting lengthy and exhaustive legal research.  Because questions of law are not dependent on evidence or a witness’s demeanor, there is no need to defer to trial court’s rulings.  Moreover, the appellate courts are concerned with maintaining a uniformity of decision and providing guidance to other litigants in other cases, which is usually not a concern shared by the trial court.   Independent review can be applied in dealing with constitutional issues, interpretation of statutes, regulations, and the Rules of Court, and issues regarding legislative validity.  The court of appeal will also independently interpret written instruments, except if the parties present conflicting evidence at trial