Ruling on 185 matters at yesterday’s conference, the Supreme Court straight granted one case, depublished the opinion in another, and took other notable actions.
Speedy trial dismissal
The court granted review in People v. Hyatt to determine whether the Orange County District Attorney violated the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and whether the DA’s appeal was proper. The Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal’s 2-1 published opinion held there was a violation, affirming the dismissal — under Penal Code section 1381 — of felony assault charges. The appellate court was unanimous, however, in concluding the DA had validly appealed to the Court of Appeal instead of to the superior court’s appellate division.
Regarding the dismissal, the majority disagreed with the Second District, Division Four, opinion in People v. Gutierrez (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 105 and the Fifth District’s opinion in People v. Clark (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 975. On the appellate procedure issue, Division Three disagreed with the Third District’s decision in People v. Nickerson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 33. The Supreme Court denied review in Gutierrez and Clark. There was no petition for review in Nickerson.
Section 1381 requires dismissal of pending criminal charges against a defendant who has already “been sentenced to and has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison” for another crime if the defendant is not brought to trial on the charges within 90 days after a trial demand. The Division Three majority rejected the DA’s claim that the defendant’s demand was premature and thus didn’t start the 90-day clock because the demand was sent when the defendant was in county jail and had not yet been sent to state prison. The dissent claimed the majority employed “a novel interpretation of section 1381 that is not only unsupported by the statute’s plain language or any legislative history, but constitutes an unwarranted departure from decades-old, settled case law that has been followed by courts and criminal law practitioners for the past 40 years.”
[June 13 update: Here is the issue as summarized by court staff (see here) — “(1) Has a defendant who has been sentenced to a prison term and is housed in a county jail pending transport to state prison “entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison,” so that they may demand a trial on other, pending charges within 90 days pursuant to Penal Code section 1381? (2) Is the dismissal of a felony complaint prior to the preliminary hearing an “appealable order in a felony case,” such that an appeal by the People is heard by the Court of Appeal? (See Pen. Code, § 1235, subd. (b).)”]
Opinion after remand depublished
The court denied review in People v. Cabada, but it depublished the Second District, Division Six, opinion. It was the second time the case was before the Supreme Court. The case was first a grant-and-hold for last August’s prejudicial-sentencing-error decision in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (see here) and the court then vacated Division Six’s first decision (that one unpublished) and directed the appellate court to reconsider in light of Lynch and Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821. (The court is still disposing of Lynch grant-and-holds. (See below.))
On remand, Division Six accepted the Attorney General’s concession that the superior court had erred in relying on three aggravating factors in imposing an upper term sentence for second degree robbery, but it also agreed with the AG that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “Had these aggravating factors been presented to the jury,” Division Six concluded, “they would have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt.” The appellate court also said “the trial court’s statements clearly indicate that it would not have imposed a lesser sentence.”
First responder liability dissenting vote
Justice Carol Corrigan recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in Devgan v. City of Santa Monica. In a 2-1 unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Two, held two Health and Safety Code sections (here and here) immunized a city from liability for actions its EMTs took in treating a man who fell and hit his head on his bathroom floor.
Under the statutes, it was a valid lawsuit only if the EMTs acted in “a grossly negligent manner.” The majority, affirming the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, concluded that disregarding “advice” by the man’s wife, a physician, to use an immobilization device was not sufficient to overcome one of the statute’s presumption “that the action taken when providing emergency services was performed . . . without gross negligence.” The dissent asserted the plaintiff had alleged facts that “sufficiently describe an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct and, thus, gross negligence.”
Another vehicle sales arbitration grant-and-hold.
Ballesteros v. Ford Motor Company is another grant-and-hold for the Ford Motor Warranty Cases (see here), argued in April, where the court limited the issue to: “Do manufacturers’ express or implied warranties that accompany a vehicle at the time of sale [by a dealer] constitute obligations arising from the sale contract [between the dealer and a buyer], permitting manufacturers to enforce an arbitration agreement in the contract pursuant to equitable estoppel?” The First District, Division Five, published Ballesteros opinion answered “no,” concluding the manufacturer in the case “[did] not come close to making [the required showing]” that, “[u]nder well-established California contract law, arbitration cannot be imposed on a signatory plaintiff’s claims against a nonsignatory without a clear showing by the nonsignatory that inequity would otherwise result.”
Back to just two dissenting votes for review about youth offender parole denial
Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Muro. In an unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Three, rejected a constitutional challenge to the statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life without parole sentences for special circumstances murders committed when older than 17 and younger than 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. After Hardin, they have been regularly dissenting from 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 recently here.)
Last month, Justice Leondra Kruger voted with Justices Liu and Evans to hear a youth offender parole matter, the first time a third member of the court had joined those two in such a case. But Justice Kruger didn’t record a vote to grant in Muro, indicating that there was something specific about the earlier case that attracted Justice Kruger’s attention and that she will not be a reliable third vote for review in youth offender parole cases in general.
Youth offender long sentence dissenting vote
The court denied review in In re Woods over Justice Liu’s recorded dissenting vote. The unpublished opinion of the Second District, Division One, rejected the defendant’s claim that an 82-year sentence for crimes he committed when he was 19 violated equal protection and was cruel and unusual punishment. The opinion followed two Supreme Court grant-and-transfer orders.
Justice Liu wanted to hear the case despite the defendant having filed only a rule 8.508 petition for review, which is “for the sole purpose of exhausting state remedies before presenting a claim for federal habeas corpus relief” and which must state “the case presents no grounds for review.”
Med mal dissenting vote
Justice Joshua Groban recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in Zaragoza v. Adam. The court also denied a depublication request. The First District, Division Three, in a belatedly published opinion, reversed a defense summary judgment in a medical malpractice case because the defendant physician’s “medical expert failed to provide a reasoned explanation for his opinions that [the physician] did not negligently perform gallbladder removal surgery on plaintiff or cause her injuries.” The court said that, although the expert opined that the physician acted within the standard of care, “critically, he did not elaborate or explain the basis for this conclusion.”
Speedy preliminary hearing grant-and-transfer, but no stay
The court ordered the Fifth District to issue an order to show cause in Lee v. Superior Court “why the information should not be set aside under Penal Code section 995 on the ground that defendant’s right to a speedy preliminary hearing under Penal Code section 859b was violated.” The Court of Appeal had summarily denied a petition for a writ of prohibition.
Despite requiring an OSC, however, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s stay request. The court cited rule XIV(B) of its Internal Operating Practices and Procedures, which states, “When a defendant in a criminal case files a petition for review after denial without opinion by the Court of Appeal of a petition for prohibition or mandate attacking a Penal Code section 995 or section 1538.5 ruling, the matter will be placed on the agenda of a regular conference and will not be accelerated. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no order staying the trial will issue.”
Resentencing grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in People v. Davenport and sent the case back to the Second District, Division Two, “with directions to vacate its [unpublished] decision and reconsider the cause in light of the Attorney General’s representation that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation included defendant on a ‘list of names sent to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and thus, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s holding, the superior court had jurisdiction to address Davenport’s resentencing petition.’ ” (Link added.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were 18 criminal case grant-and-holds: 14 of them are waiting for a decision in People v. Rhodius (see here), which was argued in April; two more on hold for People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (see here and here); and two more holding for People v. Morris (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court removed from its docket eight cases that had been holding for last August’s prejudicial-sentencing-error decision in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (see here). Six were returned to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Lynch, one was sent back for reconsideration in light of both Lynch and Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, and review was dismissed in one.
