Busy day for the Supreme Court: four grants of review, one order to show cause, five grant-and-transfers, one modification, and two depublications

The Supreme Court took the following actions at yesterday’s weekly conference:

• The court agreed to answer the Ninth Circuit’s certified question in Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding. In September the Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court to decide this question of wage-and-hour law: “Is operating engineers’ offsite ‘mobilization work’—including the transportation to and from a public works site of roadwork grinding equipment—performed ‘in the execution of [a] contract for public work,’ Cal. Lab. Code § 1772, such that it entitles workers to ‘not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed’ pursuant to section 1771 of the California Labor Code?”
• The court granted a criminal defendant’s petition for review in People v. Anderson and limited the briefing to the following issue: “Were the enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (e), improperly imposed as to counts 3 through 7 because the prosecution did not specifically plead a violation of this subdivision as to those counts? (See People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735.)”
• The court granted another criminal defendant’s petition for review in People v. Guerrero, a case in which the First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the defendant’s murder conviction and rejected his claim that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that, under the felony-murder rule, the felonies and the murder must be part of a “continuous transaction” or share a logical nexus.
• The courted issued a grant-and-hold order in People v. Peterson and deferred briefing pending the resolution of People v. Frahs.
• The court issued an order to show cause in response to a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Johnson on H.C. The court ordered the Department of Corrections to explain why the petitioner is not entitled to relief on the following grounds: “(1) Petitioner is actually innocent of the first degree murder of Martin Campos by personal use of a firearm, as alleged in Claim 1; and (2) There was jury misconduct at the guilt phase deliberations because members of the jury overtly appealed to race during deliberations, as alleged in a subclaim of Claim 7.”
• The court issued five grant-and-transfer orders.
• The court denied rehearing in People v. Johnson but made several modifications to its opinion.
• The court denied the attorney general’s petition for review in People v. Sun but depublished the opinion by the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, which reversed a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in a case in which the defendant pointed a laser at a police helicopter.
• The court depublished the opinion by the Sixth Appellate District in Alliance of Concerned Citizens v. City of San Bautista, which addressed an issue of appellate procedure. An environmental advocacy group (the Alliance) filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court, challenging a city’s approval of a development project. The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate on March 14, 2016, followed by a document entitled “final judgment” on December 12, 2016. The Alliance appealed only from the December 12 “judgment.” The Court of Appeal concluded that the Alliance had forfeited most of its appellate arguments by not appealing from the March 14 order, which was in fact a final judgment, regardless of its title.