After its two previous conferences yielded a total of nine straight grants (here, here, and here), the Supreme Court at this week’s (early) conference, a double one, made no straight-grant orders. It was a busy conference, however, the court ruling on 176 matters. Here are some of the notable actions.

Another forum selection grant-and-holdAcrisure of California, LLC v. Superior Court is another grant-and-hold for EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (see here), which is expected to decide whether a forum selection clause is enforceable when a party’s right under California state law to a jury trial for their civil claims would not apply in the exclusive forum identified by the clause.  The Acrisure writ petition was summarily denied by the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal. Another pending review-granted case about forum selection clauses is Zhang v. Superior Court (see here).

Double punishment OSC. The court issued an order to show cause in In re Uriostegui, a pro per’s habeas corpus petition. The OSC is returnable in the superior court and is to decide whether “the concurrent term imposed for the active participation in a criminal street gang conviction (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)) . . . violate[s] Penal Code section 654 and People v. Mesa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 191, as conceded by the Attorney General in his informal response filed with this court.” (Links added.)

More dissenting votes for review about youth offender parole denial.  Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Gary. The unpublished opinion by the Second District, Division Two, rejected constitutional challenges to the statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life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 and recently here.)

Parole related dissenting votes. Justices Liu and Evans also recorded dissenting votes to issue an order to show cause in In re Thompson. It was a pro per’s habeas corpus petition filed directly in the Supreme Court. There is little information about the petition on the docket other than a request for an informal response asking for “a copy of the 2021 parole suitability hearing transcript and the risk assessment.” So, it’s not clear why the dissenters thought the petition should be heard. There’s a fairly simple cure for that:  When a message vote’s message is muddled.

Writ petition dissenting vote. Justice Liu recorded a dissenting vote to grant review in Ramirez v. Superior Court. The Second District, Division Six, had summarily denied the writ petition in the matter. Because neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeal docket indicates what the case is about, it’s not clear what issue or issues piqued Justice Liu’s interest. There’s a fairly simple cure for that:  When a message vote’s message is muddled.

Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were eight criminal case grant-and-holds:  one more waiting for a decision in People v. Mitchell (see here and here); two more on hold for People v. Patton (see here), which was argued last month; two more holding for People v. Emanuel (see here); two more waiting for People v. Rhodius (see here); and one more on hold for People v. Wiley (see here).