There were no straight grants at yesterday’s conference, a double one. But here are some notable actions:

Clemency approval. The court granted Governor Gavin Newsom’s July request for a constitutionally required recommendation that allows him to pardon Cecil Stroud for 1997 and 1998 convictions of second degree burglary. Newsom has a nearly perfect clemency record — he withdrew one request before a ruling, but — applying a deferential standard (see here and here) — the court has approved all 67 of his other requests (not counting three that are pending). That’s better than former Governor Jerry Brown, who had the court without explanation block 10 intended clemency grants. The denial of a request implies that a clemency grant would be an abuse of power.

Compassionate release depublication. The court granted the California District Attorneys Association’s request to depublish the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in People v. Gonzalez. There was no petition for review. Under the compassionate release program in Penal Code section 1172.2, the appellate court ordered the recall of the terminally ill defendant’s sentence for continuous sexual abuse of his under-14 stepdaughter. The opinion said the statute “presumes a terminally ill inmate is a low risk to be released from custody because of their diagnosis, even if not fully rehabilitated.” The Third District also found inapplicable to a compassionate release the statutory ban, under certain circumstances, against a released parolee being “returned to a location within 35 miles of the actual residence of a victim.”

More dissenting votes for review about youth offender parole denial. Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denials of review in People v. Boyd. The Second District, Division Four, unpublished opinion rejected constitutional challenges to the statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life without parole sentences for special circumstances murders committed when older than 17 and younger than 26. In People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, the Supreme Court found unavailing an equal protection attack. (See here.) Justices Liu and Evans dissented there. After Hardin, they have been regularly dissenting from review denials in youth offender parole cases, including once with a separate statement asserting that cruel-or-unusual-punishment issues should be addressed (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). It seems unlikely the court will ever grant review in any such case unless a Court of Appeal goes against the tide and adopts a defense cruel-or-unusual argument. (See: The Supreme Court doesn’t decide all important issues.)

Gun control. The court denied review in People v. Anderson. The published portion of the First District, Division Three, opinion rejected a defendant’s Second Amendment challenge to his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm and of related charges. Quoting recent U.S. Supreme Court case law, Division Three held, “the statutes he challenges are constitutional, as they are ‘consistent with the principles that underpin’ this nation’s ‘regulatory tradition.’ ”

OSC for attorney failure to file a notice of appeal. The pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Campa looks like a good bet to succeed. The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in superior court “why trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal and why petitioner should not be permitted to file a constructive notice of appeal, as conceded by the Attorney General in his informal response filed with this court on October 2, 2024. (See Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. 470; In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72; Penal Code § 1240.1, subdivision (b).)”

Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were 11 criminal case grant-and-holds:  one more waiting for decisions in two death penalty appeals — People v. Bankston and People v. Hin (see here) (Hin was argued in November); four more holding for People v. Patton (see here), which will be argued next month; one more on hold for People v. Antonelli (see here); four more waiting for People v. Rhodius (see here); and one more holding for People v. Morris (see here).

Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here).

  • In re E. L. (see here) was a grant-and-hold for only In re Kenneth D., but it was remanded to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of both Kenneth D. (In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087) and In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, August opinions concerning the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and complementary California statutes (see here).
  • Agnone v. Agnone and Newton – The Children’s Learning Center, Inc. v. De Ritz, LLC (see here and here) were waiting for the August discovery sanctions opinion in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (see here). The Supreme Court dismissed review in Newton and sent Agnone back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Pricewaterhouse.