See Part I of the recap of Wednesday’s double conference. Here is Part II.
Capital resentencing dissenting vote
The court denied review in People v. Letner, but Justice Kelli Evans recorded a dissenting vote. The Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a defendant sentenced to death challenging the denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, a part of Senate Bill 1437, 2018 legislation that limited accomplice liability for murder. The appellate court said the denial was not appealable, but also stated the dismissal was “without prejudice to appellant filing a new petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Proposition 66 (Pen. Code, § 1509) [see here and here] and consistent with People v. Thompson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 101.”
Youth offender LWOP sentence dissenting votes
Justices Goodwin Liu and Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Mendoza. In an unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Five, affirmed the defendant’s conviction for two murders. Because the opinion addressed several issues and the votes are unexplained, it’s not entirely clear which ground or grounds attracted their attention. (There’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled.)
But the votes probably concerned Division Five having found to be forfeited the defendant’s claim that his life-without-parole sentence for the murders, which he committed when he was 18, constituted cruel or unusual punishment under California’s Constitution. The opinion relates that the defendant “[q]uot[ed] extensively from a dissenting statement issued by Justice Evans respecting the denial of a petition for review.” It was possibly Justice Evans’s statement in People v. Powell. (See here.)
Justices Liu and Evans have been regularly dissenting from review denials in cases challenging a 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. (See recently here.)
More dissenting votes for review about youth offender parole denial
As in People v. Mendoza (above), Justices Liu and Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Tran. The Third District’s unpublished opinion rejected an equal protection attack on a statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life without parole sentences for special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.
The defendant received an LWOP sentence for first degree murder with a drive-by shooting special circumstance. He relied on the First District, Division Four, decision in People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, which held the statute violates equal protection by excluding from possible parole a non-killer defendant sentenced for first degree murder with robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstances but allowing for parole those convicted of first degree felony murder based on robbery and burglary. The Third District distinguished Briscoe, concluding, “Unlike the offenses in Briscoe, a drive-by shooting special circumstance requires the non-killer to possess the intent to kill, while first degree drive-by shooting murder does not.”
The Supreme Court denied the Attorney General’s petition for review and depublication request in Briscoe.
COVID vaccine refusal depublication denied
The court denied a request to depublish the Second District, Division Eight, opinion in Sexton v. Apple Studios LLC. (There was no petition for review.) The decision held the superior court should have dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute an actor’s lawsuit for having a role offer rescinded because, during the pandemic, he wouldn’t get a COVID vaccine after being denied a medical exemption. The appellate court concluded, “Sexton had no privacy claim because Apple was entitled to rely on authoritative views about sensible ways to protect its workplace.”
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were 16 criminal case grant-and-holds: 13 more are holding for People v. Rhodius, but, unlike previous holds, these are just waiting for the finality of the Rhodius opinion that filed two weeks ago; one more waiting for People v. Allen (see here and here); one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here); and one more waiting for People v. Eaton (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 June’s murder-resentencing opinion in People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867. (See here and here.)
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court dismissed review in 23 cases that had been holding for the March murder resentencing opinion (or for the finality of the opinion) in People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (see here).
