The Supreme Court’s actions of note at its Wednesday conference included:

  • In In re A.R., the court said it would decide these issues:  “1. Does a parent in a juvenile dependency case have the right to challenge her counsel’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal from an order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26? (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317.5, subd. (a); In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 [ineffective assistance of counsel claim in dependency proceeding brought on a petition for writ of habeas corpus].)  2. If so, what are the proper procedures for raising such a claim?”  The notice of appeal in the case was filed three days late and the First District, Division One, Court of Appeal, dismissed the appeal, rejecting a mother’s plea for relief on grounds that, “through no fault of her own, her trial counsel inadvertently failed to file the notice of appeal in time.”
  • The court granted review in Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, limiting the issue to:  “May a class of workers bring a wage and hour class action against a staffing agency, settle that lawsuit with a stipulated judgment that releases all of the staffing agency’s agents, and then bring a second class action premised on the same alleged wage and hour violations against the staffing agency’s client?”  A divided Fourth District, Division Two, in a published opinion, disagreed with a 2018 Second District, Division Two, decision and concluded the second action was not barred, reasoning the staffing agency and the client “were not in privity, preventing [the client] from blocking [the plaintiff’s] claims under the doctrine of res judicata, and [the client] was not a released party under the settlement agreement.”  The Supreme Court denied a petition for review in the Second District case.
  • The court denied review in People v. Grimes, but Justice Goodwin Liu recorded a vote to grant.  In an unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Seven, affirmed a second-degree-murder conviction, rejecting arguments of error in failing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter and of two separate Miranda violations.  Justice Liu didn’t indicate which issue attracted his vote (see here), but it’s probably the one concerning the admission of statements the defendant made — after invoking his Miranda rights — to an informant posing as a fellow jail inmate; that’s an issue which drew a strong dissenting statement from Liu five months ago.
  • The court denied review in In re Vargas, but Justices Liu and Joshua Groban recorded votes to grant.  Discerning the reason for the recorded vote in Grimes took a little detective work (see above), but the Vargas votes are inscrutable.  Justices Liu and Groban stated no rationale for their votes and the Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily denied the habeas corpus petition in the case.  The only clue is the notation on the appellate court’s docket about the petition, “re denial of recall and resentencing in superior court.”  It’s unclear what purpose the recorded votes were intended to serve.  (See here.)
  • There were 10 criminal case grant-and-holds:  two more holding for a decision in People v. Lopez (see here); two more holding for People v. Tirado (see here); two more holding for People v. Frahs (see here), which was argued last month; two more holding for People v. Lewis (see here); one holding for both People v. Anderson (see here), which will be argued next week, and In re Vaquera (see here); and one holding for In re Scoggins (see here), which was also argued last month.