No straight grants at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference, but there were some actions of note, including:

  • The court granted-and-held in Larsen v. California Victim Compensation Board.  The case will wait for a decision in Souliotes v. California Victim Compensation Board, in which the court granted review in June to likely decide the issues:  “(1) Does a federal court’s ‘gateway’ finding of actual innocence (Schlup v. Delo (1995) 513 U.S. 298) satisfy the ‘factually innocent’ standard of Penal Code section 1485.55, subdivision (a), for entitlement to compensation by a person wrongfully convicted and incarcerated?  (2) Are the factual findings and credibility determinations made in a federal court’s Schlup order binding on state courts under Penal Code section 1485.5, subdivision (c)?”  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy is co-counsel for Mr. Souliotes in the Supreme Court.]  In Larsen, the Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, disagreed with the Second District, Division Four, Souliotes opinion and answered both questions in the affirmative.  Criticizing Division Four, which based its ruling on “the expressed language” of a statutory change despite conceding that the amendment’s sponsors “may have intended” a different result, Division Five said, “The judiciary is a coordinate branch of government, not a bureau of exam proctors.”  Under a recent rule change, until the Supreme Court’s Souliotes opinion issues, superior courts are free to follow either the Souliotes or the Larsen appellate court opinion.
  • The court let stand the First District, Division Two, published opinion in Stiavetti v. Clendenin, which held that criminal defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial (see this week’s Supreme Court decision in People v. Wycoff) are being denied due process rights by systemic delays in providing statutorily required services designed to restore competency so criminal proceedings can resume.  The Supreme Court denied both a petition for review and a depublication request.
  • After allowing the filing of a pro per’s untimely petition for review (see here), the court in Miles v. Superior Court granted the petition and directed the Fifth District to vacate its summary denial of a writ petition and to decide whether the superior court should “preserve, for consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings, an appropriate copy of the ‘Periodic Evaluation [of petitioner] Under Section 1370 of the Penal Code With Prognosis and Recommendation. . . .’  (In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 449-450; People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 284; see also Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)”  (See here.)
  • There were 14 criminal case grant-and-holds:  five more holding for  a decision in People v. Lopez (see here), five more holding for People v. Strong (see here), one more holding for People v. Delgadillo (see here), one more holding for In re Mohammad (see here), one more holding for People v. Tirado (see here), and one more holding for People v. Hernandez (see here).
  • The court sent 18 former grant-and-holds back to various Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the May opinion in People v. Lemcke (2021) 11 Cal.5th 644.  One case had been holding for over two years.