Supreme Court will decide equal protection right to resist testifying in civil commitment proceedings

At the Supreme Court’s Wednesday conference, actions of note included:

• The court granted review in Conservatorship of E.B., where the First District, Division Five, Court of Appeal in a published opinion disagreed with their colleagues in Division One — Conservatorship of Bryan S. (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 190 — regarding whether a prospective conservatee can be forced to testify in a proceeding to determine if they will be subject to an involuntary conservatorship as a gravely disabled person.  It’s an equal protection issue because, unlike prospective conservatees, other classes of people subject to involuntary civil commitments, such as those found not guilty by reason of insanity, have a statutory right to resist compelled testimony.  The Bryan S. court held prospective conservatees are not similarly situated to those other classes.  The justices in E.B. concluded prospective conservatees might be similarly situated, but didn’t resolve the issue because it found any error in compelling testimony in the case before it was harmless.  The Supreme Court denied review in Bryan S.
• The court also granted review in In re Howerton, a habeas corpus proceeding.  The Fifth District’s published opinion held that a person who meets Penal Code section 3051′s age requirements for a youth offender parole hearing is nonetheless ineligible for relief under the statute if they have previously been released on the controlling offense or previously received a parole eligibility hearing under another statutory provision.
• There was a grant-and-hold in a civil case, a relatively rare event these days.  Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC v. Superior Court is holding pending decisions in Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., which raise issues concerning the applicability of certain California wage laws to out-of-state employers regarding their employees who don’t principally work in the state.  In Gulf Offshore, the Second District, Division Six, held in a published opinion that California law did not apply to an action brought by non-California residents and former crew members of a vessel providing maintenance services to oil platforms located in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast.  The hold shouldn’t last too long because Ward and Oman were argued in April and opinions in those cases are due by July 6.
• There were eight criminal case grant-and-holds:  four more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here); one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here); one holding for both Lewis and Lopez; and two more holding for People v. Tirado (see here).
• The court dumped 18 prior grant-and-holds, either dismissing review or transferring the cases back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of a lead case.  The lead case for one was K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (see here and here).  For the other 17, the lead case was People v. Orozco, another Proposition 47 case.  (See here.)
• After the Second District, Division Five, summarily denied a habeas corpus petition in In re King, the Supreme Court granted review and directed the Court of Appeal to issue an order to show cause in the superior court “why relief should not be granted based on newly discovered evidence.”
• In In re Camarillo, also a habeas corpus petition, the Sixth District issued an order to show cause in superior court regarding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the petitioner’s sentencing hearing, but otherwise denied the petition.  That apparently wasn’t good enough for the Supreme Court, which ordered the Court of Appeal to issue a new order to show cause “why petitioner is not entitled to relief based on his claims that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.”  It’s unclear from the courts’ dockets how the Supreme Court’s order is different from the Court of Appeal’s.
• In a pro per habeas corpus petition, In re Guerrero, the court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the Court of Appeal, citing cases involving habeas corpus jurisdictional issues and punishment for criminal street gang activity.
• The court denied review in four writ proceedings apparently involving the Judicial Council’s recently repealed COVID-19 emergency rule that established a statewide emergency bail schedule.  Judicial Council members Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Ming Chin were recused.  (Related:  here.)