At its Wednesday conference, the Supreme Court denied review in a case that had the California Attorney General opposing a county district attorney.  Other than that, it was a relatively quiet mid-week meeting for the justices, with no straight grants.

Actions of note included:

  • The court granted depublication requests in Wright v. County of San Mateo, erasing from the official reports the opinion of the First District, Division Four, Court of Appeal, which nullified a county’s attempt to deny a couple a property tax break for over-55-year-olds.  No petition for review was filed.
  • The court limited the issues for two cases in which it granted review last week.  In Orchard Estate Homes, Inc. v. The Orchard Homeowner Alliance, the parties are to address, “When a trial court rules on a petition to reduce the votes required to pass an amendment to a homeowners association’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions, what, if any, role should voter non-participation play in the court’s decision?”  In People v. Barton, the only issue now is, “Does a waiver of the right to appeal, included as part of a plea bargain for a stipulated sentence, bar an appeal of the sentence imposed if newly enacted legislation would otherwise be available to enable the appellant to obtain a remand for resentencing under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740?”
  • The court stepped in to possibly save a pro per litigant’s appeal.  In Karnazes v. Ares, the court granted review — after first allowing her to file a late petition for review — and sent the case back to the Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal with directions “to consider whether to vacate its . . . order dismissing petitioner’s appeal in light of the fact that petitioner had previously been granted an extension of time to May 16, 2019, to file her opening brief.”
  • There were four criminal case grant-and-holds.