The Supreme Court yesterday denied review in In re Mendoza, a pro per’s petition for review seeking discovery and appointment of counsel under the California Racial Justice Act (here and here). Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes and filed an extended separate statement (authored by Justice Liu) arguing that the “denial of review leaves petitioners like Mendoza in an impossible catch-22: Their petitions are deemed inadequate for lack of the very data they seek counsel and discovery under the RJA to obtain.” The dissenters claim that the court’s “inaction portends a silent evisceration of the RJA.”
The separate statement says Mendoza, “who is Hispanic and was 20 years old when he committed the underlying offense [first-degree murder], alleges he was disparately charged with special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) due to his race, ethnicity, or national origin in violation of the [RJA]” and that he “presented uncontroverted statewide data showing racial disparities in sentencing Hispanic defendants to LWOP, along with data showing even greater disparities in sentencing Hispanic youth to LWOP.”
The Supreme Court’s order is a bit puzzling. The court said the denial of review is “without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this court decides In re Montgomery.” The court last week agreed to hear Montgomery (see here), with the issue as summarized by court staff (see here), “Must a petitioner allege a prima facie case for relief under the Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745; RJA) before the trial court can consider a discovery request for disclosure of evidence under the RJA (id., subd. (d))?” Under a nearly 10-year-old policy change, I would have expected Mendoza to be a grant-and-hold for Montgomery instead of a without-prejudice denial. In any event, Mendoza’ RJA claims have not been finally rejected.
