Part I of the report on the Supreme Court’s Wednesday double conference is here. This is Part II.
Juvenile de facto LWOP resentencing dissenting votes
Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in four cases where the Courts of Appeal affirmed denials of resentencing petitions filed by defendants serving 40-years-to-life prison terms for crimes committed when they were under 18 years old. (People v. Hitchcock, People v. Pheng, People v. Sanchez, People v. Walton.)
The defendants sought relief under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1), which permits resentencing “[w]hen a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years.” Although they weren’t sentenced to life without parole, the defendants relied on the Fourth District, Division One, opinion in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, which held the statute denied equal protection by precluding a resentencing opportunity for those “who were sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without parole.” (There was no petition for review in Heard.)
In unpublished opinions, the Courts of Appeal concluded that a 40-years-to-life sentence was not the “functional equivalent” of a life without parole term. (Hitchcock [Second District, Division Three], Pheng [Third District], Sanchez [Sixth District], Walton [Second District, Division Six].)
Justices Liu and Evans have previously dissented from the denials of review in similar cases. (See here.)
No-pornography probation condition grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in People v. Juarez-Victoria and sent the case back to the Second District, Division Six, for reconsideration in light of In re D.H. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 722, 729, which Division Six didn’t mention in its unpublished opinion.
The defendant was sentenced to four years probation for assault with the intent to commit sexual penetration, misdemeanor battery, and misdemeanor false imprisonment. One probation condition was to “not possess any sexually stimulating or sexually oriented material in any form, or receive or access any sexually oriented media.”
Division Six held “the terms ‘sexually stimulating’ and ‘sexually oriented’ are sufficiently clear to provide appellant with fair warning of the type of material he may not access or possess.” The D.H. court, however, concluded a condition “not to access pornography” was “vague because the term ‘pornography’ itself is unclear.” There was no petition for review in D.H.
Bail grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in In re Grimes and returned the case to the Fifth District — which had summarily denied the habeas corpus petition in the case — with directions to issue an order to show cause “why the petitioner should not be granted a new bail review hearing on the basis that the superior court did not comply with In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135 [see here] when it failed to address the feasibility of nonfinancial conditions of release with sufficient specificity to facilitate review of its detention order.”
Gang crime OSC
The court issued an order to show cause, in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in In re Timberlake, “why relief should not be granted on the ground petitioner’s conviction of carrying a loaded weapon as an active participant of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(3)) must be reversed pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 333.” (Link added.) (Did the Fifth District already grant that relief in a March unpublished opinion?)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were 13 criminal case grant-and-holds: eight more waiting for a decision in People v. Rhodius (see here), which was argued last month; one more holding for People v. Bankston (see here), which was argued last week; one more waiting for People v. Faial (see here), which was also argued last week; one on hold for the finality of last month’s murder-resentencing opinion in People v. Antonelli (see here); one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here); and one waiting for People v. Eaton, in which review was just granted (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
Five cases that were holding for the August prejudicial-sentencing-error decision in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (see here) were returned to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Lynch.
Another case that was sent back for reconsideration in light of Lynch had been holding for both Lynch and the November 2023 resentencing decision in People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 (see here).
Criminal case grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in one case and transferred it to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the March murder resentencing opinion in People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (see here).
