These will be the last of four opinions for cases argued in March.
Court of Appeal justices have been sitting pro tem on the March cases in place of Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, who left the court at the end of October and wasn’t replaced until the end of March.
Pulliam will address whether the word “recovery” as used in the Holder Rule (16 C.F.R. § 433.2) includes attorney fees. The Rule gives consumers relief from loans used to purchase what turn out to be defective goods, but also limits consumers’ recoveries. The court granted review in April 2021. (Horvitz & Levy submitted a letter requesting depublication of the appellate court’s opinion, whether or not the court granted review. The court denied depublication.) Third District Justice Ronald Robie is the pro tem.
Padilla should answer the question, When a judgment becomes final, but is later vacated, altered, or amended and a new sentence imposed, is the case no longer final for the purpose of applying an intervening ameliorative change in the law? The change in the law at issue is Proposition 57, a 2016 initiative that limits prosecuting crimes by minors in adult criminal court. The defendant in the case was first sentenced over 20 years ago to life without parole for a murder he committed at age 16. Based on U.S. Supreme Court LWOP-for-minors case law, his sentence was vacated twice and he received the same sentence at both subsequent resentencings, the last in 2019. The court granted review in August 2020. Second District, Division Six, Justice Steven Perren is the pro tem.
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.