Actions of note at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference — a double one — included:

  • Supreme Court approves three pardons.
  • The court granted review in People v. Renteria, where a divided Fifth District Court of Appeal unpublished opinion struck some enhancements and allowed the superior court to strike another, but otherwise affirmed a long prison sentence for two counts, with other enhancements, of shooting at an inhabited dwelling for the benefit of a criminal street gang.  The appellate court addressed several different arguments and the Supreme Court hasn’t limited the issues, at least not yet.  However, the dissent disagreed only with the majority’s conclusion that substantial evidence supported gang enhancements.  [April 16 update:  The issue, as summarized by court staff is:  Was the evidence sufficient to support the criminal street gang enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)?]  [April 22 update:  The court has now limited the issue — see here.]
  • The court denied review in In re M.C., but it depublished the opinion of the Second District, Division Six, which upheld the superior court’s denial of a motion for in camera inspection of a police officer’s personnel file.  The juvenile defendant was made a ward of the court after the trial court sustained a burglary and vandalism petition.  The appellate court found that the motion “presents no scenario of officer misconduct.”
  • The court denied review in People v. Laanui, but Justice Goodwin Liu recorded a vote to grant.  The divided, partially published opinion of the Second District, Division One, mostly affirmed convictions for six offenses committed over a 22-year period, including murder, solicitation of murder, and assault with a firearm.  The defendant raised nine arguments, so it’s unclear which issue or issues attracted Justice Liu’s attention.  (See here.)  The published part of the opinion concluded, “the information adequately pleaded the prior strike as to all counts, and the trial court did not err in doubling the sentences of all eligible offenses.”  The dissenter believed “the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it doubled [the defendant’s] sentence on [one] count . . . based on the ‘Three Strikes’ law.”
  • The court denied review in a case affirming jail time for the CEO of a residential care facility for the elderly.  In People v. Skiff, the Second District, Division Six, published opinion found substantial evidence supported the CEO’s convictions of elder abuse and involuntary manslaughter for the death of a resident diagnosed with dementia who ran into traffic on a busy highway.  The Supreme Court also denied a depublication request by the California Assisted Living Association.
  • After the Sixth District summarily denied a writ petition, the Supreme Court granted review in Singh v. Superior Court and transferred the case back to the appellate court with directions to issue an order to show cause.  After the petition for review was filed, the Supreme Court stayed a superior court order requiring production of recordings to opposing counsel and to a child custody evaluator.
  • There were 24 criminal case grant-and-holds:  one more holding for a decision in People v. Strong (see here), one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here), nine more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here), three more holding for both Strong and Lewis, one more holding for both Lopez and Lewis (that’s a total of 238 Lewis grant-and-holds), three more holding for People v. Raybon (see here), two more holding for People v. Tirado (see here), one holding for People v. Williams (see here), one more holding for People v. Padilla and  People v. Federico (see here), one more holding for People v. Duke (see here), and one more holding for People v. Delgadillo (see here).