Supreme Court will hear another SB 1437 resentencing case, and a case involving the limitations period for UCL claims against insurers

At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review in one criminal case and one civil case and took a few other notable actions:

• Another SB 1437 resentencing case. The Supreme Court agreed to decide an another issue arising from the 2018 legislation — Senate Bill 1437 — that limited criminal liability for felony murder. See here for discussion of a prior SB 1437 decision and here for discussion of another pending SB1437 case. In the latest case, People v. Antonelli, Division Six of the Second Appellate District held in a published opinion that defendants convicted of “provocative act murder” are not eligible for resentencing relief under SB 1437 as a matter of law. Under the provocative act murder doctrine, when the defendant or one of his accomplices commits a malicious act that is likely to result in death, and that act causes someone else to kill in response to the provocative act, the defendant can be prosecuted for murder.
• Statute of limitations for UCL claims against insurers. The Supreme Court granted review in Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and limited review to the following issue: “When a plaintiff files an action against the plaintiff’s insurer for injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law, which limitations period applies, the one-year limitations period authorized by Insurance Code section 2071 or the four-year statute of limitations in Business and Professions Code section 17208?” The First Appellate District, Division Two, held in a published opinion that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the one-year provision in the Insurance Code.
• Criminal case grant-and hold. In People v. Parker, the court issued another grant-and-hold for People v. Hardin (see here).
• Order to show cause in habeas case. In Chavira on H.C., the court responded to a pro se prisoner’s habeas petition by issuing an order to show cause to the Department of Corrections, asking it to explain why the petitioner is not entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court directed the Department to respond in the superior court, and directed the superior court to appoint counsel for the petitioner.
• Dismissals of SB 1437 resentencing cases after People v. Reyes. The Supreme Court dismissed review in a slew of SB 1437 resentencing cases that were on hold pending the outcome of People v. Reyes (see here).
• Clemency grant. The court granted the governor’s request for clemency for Steven Cox, who was convicted in 1999 of possession of a controlled substance for sale.
• One vote to grant review in criminal case. Justice Groban voted to grant review in People v. Zemek, a case in which the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, upheld a murder conviction in a published opinion.