Yesterday’s early Supreme Court conference was as sedate as last week’s was bustling. Last week, the court ruled on 201 matters, and there were two straight grants and three multi-justice dissents from denials of review, including two dissents with detailed separate statements. This week, there were 92 rulings, no straight grants, and not a single dissent. Justice Carol Corrigan was absent; maybe the court is saving the juicier stuff for when she’s back.
But there were a few actions of note, including:
Racial Justice Act grant-and-transfers.
The RJA (here and here) is a good candidate to be the next big thing on the court’s docket. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero has already identified it as legislation that is “impacting [the court’s] workflow.” (See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here.) Yesterday, the court granted two pro per petitions for review — In re Green and In re Wilkins — after summary denials of pro per habeas corpus petitions by Courts of Appeal, and it directed the issuance of orders to show cause, returnable in the superior courts.
The Green habeas corpus denial was by the Second District, Division Seven, Court of Appeal. In that case, cause is now to be shown: “why (1) the petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel and the disclosure of discovery and (2) the petition does not state a prima facie case for relief under the Racial Justice Act. (Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the disclosure of discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)”
The First District, Division One, denied the Wilkins habeas petition with a three-paragraph explanatory order. Despite those reasons, the Supreme Court wants the superior court to evaluate — similar to the second Green issue — whether the petition “satisf[ies] the statutory requirements for the disclosure of discovery and the appointment of counsel under the Racial Justice Act. (Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the disclosure of discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)”
Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were seven criminal case grant-and-holds: two more holding for decisions in two death penalty appeals — People v. Bankston and People v. Hin (see here); one more waiting for People v. Lynch (see here), which was argued last month ; one on hold for both Lynch and People v. Wiley (see here); one more on hold for a decision in People v. Arellano (see here), which was also argued last month; one more waiting for People v. Walker (see here), also argued last month; and one more holding for People v. Patton (see here).