No October surprises from the Supreme Court at its last Wednesday conference of the month.  Other than some grant-and-holds, the court didn’t add any cases to its docket, and it even got rid of one that was just starting the briefing process.  Actions of note included:

  • The court dismissed review as moot in In re Howerton on the parties’ joint motion.  Review was granted four months ago.  The court also depublished the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion that held 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.
  • The court denied review in People v. Barerra, but Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Leondra Kruger recorded votes to grant.  In an unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Three, rejected arguments of prejudicial evidentiary and instructional error, several substantial evidence claims, an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel contention regarding sentencing, and an assertion the defendant was entitled to an ability-to-pay hearing before the court imposed fines and assessments.  Because of the varied issues addressed, it’s unclear what prompted the unexplained dissenting votes for review.
  • The denial of review in People v. Jackson also drew two dissenting votes, this time from Justices Goodwin Liu and Joshua Groban.  A divided unpublished opinion by the Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed defendant’s convictions for second degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, and shooting at an occupied vehicle, but reversed and remanded on sentencing.  As in Barerra (above), there were a number of different issues, so it’s uncertain what issue or issues interested Justices Liu and Groban.  However, it might have been the issue on which there was a dissent in the appellate court — whether there was substantial evidence to support a conviction for provocative act murder.
  • The court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the Court of Appeal, in In re Harper, a habeas corpus petition filed over 10 months ago, and it directed consideration of whether relief is appropriate based on petitioner’s “claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the robbery-murder special circumstance finding under People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 609-623 and People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788.”  (See here and here.)  The court addressed that question in In re Scoggins this past June, and it has made similar orders in the past (see here and here ).
  • There were 11 criminal case grant-and-holds:  seven more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here); two more holding for Lewis and People v. Lopez (see here); one more holding for In re Gadlin, which was argued three weeks ago (see also here and here); and one more holding for People v. Garcia and People v. Valencia (see here).