The Supreme Court issued one outright grant of review yesterday, in a criminal case out of the Second District, Division Six.  In People v. Maya, a prisoner sought to expunge his conviction for possession of methamphetamine after he successfully moved to reduce the felony conviction to a misdemeanor.  The trial court denied the request after finding that the prisoner could not establish that he had lived “an honest and upright life” (as required by Penal Code section 1203.4a) because he had been in continuous state or federal custody following his conviction.  The Court of Appeal agreed in a 2-1 published decision, with Justice Tangeman dissenting.

Other results from yesterday’s conference:

  • A grant-and-hold in an asbestos injury case, Burch v. Certainteed.  The court limited the issue to whether Proposition 51 applies to intentional tort cases: “Does Civil Code section 1431.2, which limits a defendant’s liability for noneconomic damages ‘in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault,’ eliminate an intentional tortfeasor’s joint and several liability for noneconomic damages?”  The court deferred briefing pending the resolution of B.B. v. County of Los Angeles.
  • Two grant-and-holds in wrongful detainer cases, pending the disposition of Stancil v. Superior Court.  (That makes at least a dozen cases on hold for Stancil.)
  • A grant-and-hold in a Privette case, pending the disposition of Sandoval v. Quallcom and Gonzalez v. Mathis.
  • A grant-and-hold in a PAGA case, pending the disposition of Lawson v. ZB, N.A.
  • An order to show cause in a habeas case, Puckett on H.C.  The order to show cause asks the state to explain why a prisoner should not be released on the grounds that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence and the prisoner has presented new evidence of his innocence.
  • Eight grant-and-holds in criminal cases.
  • Three grant-and-transfer orders.
  • A request for supplemental briefing in Facebook v. Superior Court (Touchstone), which involves whether defendants in a murder case are entitled to access of the victim’s social media posts.  The Supreme Court has ask the parties to address whether the Court should take judicial notice of and unseal the underlying social media posts.