It was a double conference day yesterday; double because the court didn’t conference last week when it was hearing oral arguments. Even with a bunch of extra petitions to consider, there were no straight grants, but there were some actions of note, including:
- The court denied review in Cacho v. Eurostar, Inc., but it depublished the opinion of the Second District, Division Seven, Court of Appeal in a wage-and-hour case alleging deficient meal and rest break policies. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification.
- Also depublished was the First District, Division Two, opinion in People v. Kerbs, which reversed — as not supported by substantial evidence — the civil commitment extension for a defendant who, over 20 years ago, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of assault with a deadly weapon. The Attorney General didn’t petition for review, but the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office requested depublication.
- After the Attorney General conceded relief is warranted in In re Virden, the court granted review and transferred the case back to the Second District, Division Four. This one is interesting because the Supreme Court apparently spotted merit in the case mostly on its own. The appellate court had summarily denied a habeas corpus petition and the petitioner’s counsel filed a petition for review to exhaust state remedies, which, as described in rule 8.508, is “an abbreviated petition for review . . . for the sole purpose of exhausting state remedies before presenting a claim for federal habeas corpus relief.” But someone at the court saw the petition as more than just a procedural placeholder, which led to a request for an answer to the petition, and which led to the Attorney General’s concession. The case involves an ex post facto issue.
- The court denied review in Riley v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, but Justice Goodwin Liu recorded a vote to grant. In a published opinion, the First District, Division Five, affirmed a summary judgment on governmental immunity grounds against a plaintiff who was injured by a car being pursued by officers. (Related: here.) Justice Liu specified that he wanted review granted “as to the 3rd issue.” It’s not clear if that means the third issue in the petition for review or in the opinion. We haven’t seen the petition, but the third issue in the opinion concerns whether the defendant satisfied a statutory prerequisite to immunity by providing adequate pursuit-policy training on, among other things, speed limits.
- Justice Liu (this time joined by Justice Joshua Groban) also recorded a vote dissenting from the denial of review in People v. Romero, where the published opinion of the Second District, Division Two, among other things, rejected the defendant’s claim that a prior juvenile robbery conviction could not be used to increase his sentence because a juvenile doesn’t have a right to a jury trial. The defendant unsuccessfully argued that recent U.S. Supreme Court case law made a 2009 California Supreme Court case on the issue no longer controlling.
- Justices Liu and Groban additionally recorded dissenting votes to grant review in Vargas v. Superior Court. The Fourth District, Division Three, summarily denied a writ petition with one justice issuing a dissenting statement. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sent a letter authorizing and recommending resentencing by the superior court, but the superior court — without defendant or his counsel present — declined to do so. The dissenter wrote, “it seems ‘manifestly unfair’ for the trial court to have declined the CDCR Secretary’s invitation to dismiss Vargas’s prior serious felony conviction without notice, the appointment of counsel, and a hearing.”
- Another Attorney General concession led the court to issue an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in In re Morales, a habeas corpus proceeding. Besides the conceded issue, which is apparently the propriety of a gang firearm enhancement, the court denied the habeas petition, but “without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this court decides In re Lopez” (link added) (see here).
- There were eight criminal case grant-and-holds: four more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here); two more holding for People v. Frahs (see here), which was argued last week; one more holding for People v. Lemcke (originally People v. Rudd) (see here); and one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here).