There were no straight grants at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference, but several justices weren’t happy about that. Four different members of the court dissented from various denials of petitions for review. Those and other notable actions were:
One vote short of review, probably on a Miranda issue. The court just barely denied review in People v. Hernandez, with Justices Goodwin Liu, Martin Jenkins, and Kelli Evans recording dissents. The dissenting votes are unexplained and the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal unpublished opinion addresses several issue, so the reason or reasons for Liu, Jenkins, and Evans’s dissatisfaction is not clear. However, it’s likely the issue that attracted their attention is the use of undercover operatives posing as fellow jail inmates to illicit incriminating statements after the defendant had invoked his right to remain silent. Finding nothing wrong with the practice and extrapolating from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, Division One said, “we note ‘California courts have uniformly come to the conclusion that Perkins [not Miranda] controls when a suspect invokes his Miranda right to counsel but later speaks with someone he does not know is an agent of the police.’ ” Justice Liu has consistently advocated for review of the issue, including twice penning separate statements, and he has brought some justices along with him, but not the fourth vote necessary to hear a case, at least not yet. (See here, here, here, here, and here.)
Two votes for review about youth offender parole denial. The court denied review in People v. Cervantes, but Justices Liu and Evans recorded dissenting votes. The unpublished Second District, Division Five, opinion rejected constitutional challenges to the statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life without parole sentences for special circumstances murders committed between the ages of 18 and 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. They have not sought to revisit the equal protection issue, but, after Hardin, they have dissented from other 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 here). Division Five wrote in Cervantes, “Even taking into account his diminished culpability as a 23 year old, Cervantes’s crimes are such that the sentence does not exceed the constitutional limit.”
Two votes for review about scope of murder resentencing hearing. Justices Liu and Evans also recorded dissenting votes from the court’s decision not to hear People v. Palacios. The published portion of the Second District, Division Three, opinion held a resentencing hearing under Senate Bill 1437 couldn’t include the defendant’s contention, not raised at trial, that his confession was involuntary. The 2018 legislation limited criminal liability for felony murder, eliminated it for murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, and allowed possible resentencing for those convicted under pre-SB 1437 law. Interpreting a statute added by SB 1437, Division Three concluded the confession could be considered in determining whether the evidence supported a conviction under current law because there were “no grounds for excluding the confession today that were not available at the time of his trial.”
Two votes for review in Three-Strikes resentencing case. The court denied review in People v. Payne over the recorded dissenting votes of Justices Joshua Groban and Evans. The Fifth District unpublished opinion affirmed the denial of relief under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.
Yet another Riverside ICWA grant-and-hold. In re D.M. is one more grant-and-hold for In re Ja.O. (see here), which is expected to decide whether, under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and complementary state statutory law, the duty of a child welfare agency to inquire of extended family members and others about a child’s potential Indian ancestry applies to children who are taken into custody under a protective custody warrant. The Ja.O. decision will resolve a multi-case split in the Fourth District, Division Two, on the issue. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.) The D.M. 2-1 published opinion holds the duty “applies only if the child was placed into temporary custody without a warrant.” You’d think that the Division Two justices would have said all they need to say on the issue by now, but the majority opinion is 40 pages long and the dissent takes 23 pages. The majority says, “We publish this opinion in order to explain why we are . . . unpersuaded by subsequent cases [some decided by other Courts of Appeal] that follow [a Division Two opinion that’s consistent with the dissent].”
Another Lemon Law grant-and-hold. Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc. is another grant-and-hold for Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (see here and here), where the issue is whether a used vehicle that is still covered by the manufacturer’s express warranty is a “new motor vehicle” within the meaning of Civil Code section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2), which defines “new motor vehicle” as including a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.” In Stiles, the Second District, Division Six, in a published opinion, resolved the issue in the affirmative. Horvitz & Levy filed the petition for review in Stiles and is also appellate counsel for the defendant in Rodriguez. The Supreme Court yesterday denied plaintiff’s motion for calendar preference in Rodriguez, but it did send an oral argument letter on Monday.
Another discovery sanctions grant-and-hold. Newton – The Children’s Learning Center, Inc. v. De Ritz, LLC is another grant-and-hold for City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (see here), argued in June (video here), in which the court agreed to decide whether a court’s authority to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process is limited to circumstances expressly delineated in a method-specific provision of the Civil Discovery Act, or whether courts have independent authority to impose monetary sanctions for such discovery misconduct, including under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. The Pricewaterhouse case involves a $2,500,000 sanction. In Newton, the unpublished opinion by the First District, Division Four, distinguished Pricewaterhouse in a footnote and affirmed a sanction award of about $60,000.
The Cincinnati Reds strike out in workers’ comp case. The court declined to hear The Cincinnati Reds v. WCAB after the Fourth District, Division Three, summarily denied a petition for a writ of review. Rejecting an argument by the National League baseball club, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board ruled that the Board had personal jurisdiction over the Ohio team regarding an injury claim by Chad Fonceca, a former minor league ballplayer employed by the Reds for 16 months. The Reds signed Fonceca to a contract in California after a tryout in the state, but he never played a professional game in California while a Reds employee, although he did participate at the Reds’ direction in junior college games in California in the off-season. The Board concluded that “the contacts between the Cincinnati Reds and California were sufficient to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”
Incompetency to stand trial. The court issued an order to show cause on the habeas corpus petition in In re Zaki, directing a superior court hearing regarding “why petitioner is not entitled to relief based on allegations he was incompetent to stand trial and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate petitioner’s mental illness and initiate competency proceedings.”
Ineffective assistance of counsel. The court granted review in In re W.H., a habeas corpus petition, and directed a superior court hearing to determine whether relief should be granted “on the ground trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.” Relevant to that issue, the court had earlier asked for an answer to the petition for review to address “(1) Is evidence of specific acts of infidelity admissible under Evidence Code section 1102, subdivision (b) to rebut evidence of the defendant’s character for honesty?, (2) Does Evidence Code section 352 apply to evidence admitted under Evidence Code section 1102, subdivision (b)?, and (3) If Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence admitted under Evidence Code section 1102, subdivision (b), is the evidence at issue in the instant case admissible under Evidence Code section 352?” The First District, Division Three, had summarily denied the habeas corpus petition after it affirmed in an unpublished opinion the defendant’s conviction for committing a lewd act on a child.
Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were two criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in People v. Antonelli (see here) and one holding for People v. Morris (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here). West Adams Heritage Association v. City of Los Angeles was holding (see here) for Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43 (see here). The court sent West Adams back to the Court of Appeal to reconsider the case in light of Assembly Bill 1307 and the Make UC opinion. The appeal in a case that had been waiting for April’s witness-dissuasion opinion in People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982 (see here) was abated due to the defendant’s death.