At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court took a number of notable actions, including:
Pandemic health violation fine review denial
Supreme Court leaves standing million-dollar pandemic health violation fine against church.
Murder resentencing denial dissenting votes
Dissenting statement in murder resentencing denial case.
River flow reduction
The court granted review in Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield. The Fifth District Court of Appeal’s published opinion overturned a superior court injunction that barred a city from operating weirs “in any manner that reduces Kern River flows below the volume sufficient to keep fish downstream of said weirs in good condition.”
The superior court order was in keeping with Fish and Game Code section 5937, which requires any dam owner to “allow sufficient water to pass over, around or through the dam, to keep in good condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the dam.” But the Fifth District held that following only the dictates of the statute without “consider[ing] the reasonableness of the water use” violated article X, section 2 of California’s Constitution, an expressly “self-executing” provision that requires putting the State’s water resources “to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable” and preventing the “unreasonable use . . . of water.”
The appellate justices said “the Legislature has a central role to play in how water is used,” but it is “modest[ly]” limited by the constitutional prohibition. “Unreasonable or non-beneficial uses of water are never permitted under the Constitution, even if a statute would otherwise require it,” the Fifth District concluded. It did not decide, however, whether, in the case before it, the use of the river water to keep downstream fish in good condition was unreasonable.
The Fifth District made other rulings as well, including that the superior court erred in requiring only a nominal bond be posted by the parties who obtained the water flow injunction.
[July 18 update: Here is the issue as summarized by court staff (see here) — “Does Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution require a court to consider whether a proposed water use is both ‘reasonable’ and ‘beneficial’ whenever it would direct or adjudicate a particular use of water, including when applying a water use statute that does not expressly incorporate the reasonable and beneficial determination?”]
Attempted-manslaughter resentencing
Speaking of Senate Bill 1437 resentencing cases (see here and People v. Langi below), the court also agreed to hear People v. Luu, granting the Attorney General’s petition for review. In a published opinion, the Fourth District, Division Three, held “a petitioner is eligible for relief under section 1172.6 when that person was charged with attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and he or she was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter.”
It so concluded while recognizing, “Although the inchoate crime of attempted manslaughter is not explicitly stated in the statute, the completed crime of manslaughter is explicitly stated in the statute.” The appellate court applied “long standing rules of statutory interpretation, which hold that a court ‘ “may reject a literal construction that is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute or that would lead to absurd results.” ’ ”
[July 18 update: Here is the issue as summarized by court staff (see here) — “Is a person convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter eligible for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6?”]
Late arbitration fees grant-and-hold
Sanders v. Superior Court is another grant-and-hold for Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (see here), in which the court is expected to address whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay the fees. Hohenshelt was argued in May and an opinion is expected next month.
In Sanders, the Second District, Division Seven, published opinion concluded the plaintiff’s employment action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) did not need to be arbitrated because the defendant failed to timely pay arbitration fees and costs and because the state statutes allowing the plaintiff to avoid arbitration under those circumstances were not preempted by the FAA. It also held the arbitrator wasn’t required to determine whether the defendant was in default because the applicable statute “vests in the employee or consumer the unilateral right upon the drafting party’s failure to timely pay fees to withdraw from the arbitration and proceed in court.”
Sentence commutation approved
The court granted Governor Gavin Newsom’s May request for a constitutionally required recommendation that allows him to commute Joseph Bruno-Martinez’s 2008 42-years-to-life sentence for discharging a firearm at an inhabited vehicle and attempted murder with a sentence enhancement. In its letter to the Governor, the court specifically noted that Newsom’s “request stated: ‘The Governor is contemplating a commutation of sentence that would make Mr. Bruno-Martinez eligible for an earlier parole suitability hearing.’ ” (Related: “Newsom grants clemency, but freedom isn’t certain”.)
Newsom has a nearly perfect clemency record: he withdrew one request before a ruling, but the court — applying a deferential standard (see here and here) — has approved all 74 of his other requests (not counting 12 that are still pending (see here, here, and here)). That’s better than former Governor Jerry Brown, who had the court without explanation block 10 intended clemency grants. The denial of a request implies that a clemency grant would be an abuse of power.
Murder resentencing dissenting vote
Justice Joshua Groban recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in People v. Langi. The unpublished opinion of the First District, Division Four, affirmed the denial of a Senate Bill 1437 resentencing petition filed by a defendant convicted of second degree murder in 2007. The opinion decides more than one issue, so it’s not entirely clear which issue or issues attracted Justice Groban’s attention. (There’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled.) It could have been Division Four’s holding that the superior court properly considered evidence of a prior similar offense the defendant committed as a juvenile.
Transfer of minor to criminal court dissenting votes
The court denied review in In re S.F. over recorded dissenting votes of Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans. The Third District’s unpublished opinion addressed multiple issues, so it’s not entirely clear which issue or issues attracted their attention. (There’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled.)
However, it’s likely the votes concerned the affirmance of the superior court’s ruling transferring the defendant from juvenile court to criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 to be tried on charges of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling with firearm and great bodily injury enhancements. The Fifth District rejected arguments that the superior court prejudicially erred in its analysis of three of the five criteria that juvenile courts must consider in determining whether a transfer is warranted.
More dissenting votes for review about youth offender parole denial
Justices Liu and Evans also recorded dissenting votes from the denials of review in People v. Aguirre and People v. Prado. In unpublished opinions, the Second District, Division Seven, in Aguirre and the Second District, Division Two, in Prado rejected constitutional challenges 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; see also here.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were 11 criminal case grant-and-holds: seven more are holding for People v. Rhodius, but, unlike most of the previous holds, these are just waiting for the finality of the Rhodius opinion that filed last month; more on hold for In re Hernandez (see here and here); two more waiting for In re Montgomery (see here); and one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
A dozen cases that had been holding for the March murder resentencing opinion in People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (see here) were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Patton.
