The Supreme Court’s Wednesday conference was the second double conference in a row without a straight grant, but there were some actions of note, including:

  • The court denied Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John Laettner’s petition for review, leaving in place the November decision of the Commission on Judicial Performance to remove him from the bench.  A Commission news release summarized numerous findings of misconduct, including “a pattern of misconduct toward a number of women, some of whom appeared before him as attorneys, that was unwelcome, undignified, discourteous, and offensive, that constituted gender bias” and “gender bias and sexual harassment” against the judge’s court reporter.  The Commission also cited the judge’s lack of credibility and truthfulness during its hearing and his failure “to acknowledge the impropriety of the majority of his misconduct.”
  • The court concluded it wouldn’t take up Wilson v. Cable News Network for a second time.  Last July, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case holding media defendants can properly file motions to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute when they are sued for a limited number of employment actions they have taken.  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in the case.]  On remand, the Second District, Division One, Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, held the plaintiff had made a sufficient evidentiary showing to defeat CNN’s motion on the merits.
  • The court denied review in People v. Botello, but depublished the Third District’s partially published opinion.  In the published portion, the appellate court reversed a life-without-parole sentence imposed for murders committed by a juvenile because it couldn’t determine “whether the trial court applied the correct sentencing standard.”  It also “offer[ed] some general guidance to promote clear answers in our trial courts” to what it said were “complex questions.”
  • In In re Lancaster, a pre-Proposition 66 death penalty habeas corpus proceeding, the court exercised its discretion to decide the case itself (see here) and issued an order to show cause in superior court regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
  • There were two criminal case grant-and-transfers.  In K.P. v. Superior Court, the First District, Division One, summarily denied a writ petition apparently challenging a juvenile’s transfer to adult criminal court.  People v. Rios was sent back for reconsideration in light of People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40; the Supreme Court decided McKenzie one day after the Third District issued its unpublished opinion in Rios.
  • There were eight criminal case grant-and-holds:  two more holding for a decision in People v. Lopez (see here); one holding for Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Touchstone) (see here, here, and here), which was argued last month; one more holding for In re Milton (see here); one more holding for People v. Tirado (see here); one more holding for People v. Frahs (see here), which was argued in April; one more holding for People v. Lewis (see here); and one more holding for People v. Stamps (see here), which was also argued in April.

[June 12 update:  Here‘s a corrected conference results list.  It shows a record vote by Justice Joshua Groban to grant review in People v. Ruiz, dissenting from the court’s denial.  The Fourth District, Division Two, in an unpublished opinion, upheld a superior court’s denial of a request by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to resentence the defendant.  The defendant claimed the judge erroneously thought resentencing was barred because the defendant had been sentenced after a plea bargain, but the appellate court found the judge had not been under that misapprehension.]