What is the difference between a factual finding and a legal conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence?

Thus, the magistrate made two findings after the evidentiary hearing. The firstthat there was no presumption of vindictivenessis a legal question to which we have disagreed. The secondthat there was no actual vindictivenessis, in the first instance, a factual question given that such a question involves a dispute about the People's motives and the credibility of witnesses. To this we must follow the usual scope of review. "The character of judicial review ... depends on whether the magistrate has exercised his power to render findings of fact. If he has made findings, those findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence."

[190 Cal.App.4th 1488]

( People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 638, 200 Cal.Rptr. 448, 677 P.2d 854.) But, in the second instance, the question is a legal question given that the facts as found must support the conclusion reached. (Cf. People v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1008, 1015, 220 Cal.Rptr. 330 [noting distinction between a magistrate's factual findings and a magistrate's legal conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence presented].)

[190 Cal.App.4th 1488]