At its last conference of the 2024-2025 term, the Supreme Court didn’t straight grant any cases, but it took some notable actions, including:
Redistricting election will go forward
The court denied a second writ petition. See: Supreme Court greenlights redistricting election.
Dissenting vote: child abuse immunity
The court denied review in Holman v. County of Butte, but Justice Joshua Groban recorded a dissenting vote.
In a belatedly published opinion resolving a pro per’s appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgement, concluding statutory discretionary immunity did not protect from liability a county social worker’s alleged mishandling of a report made by a mandated reporter under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. The appellate court held, “when social workers receive a mandated report of suspected child abuse, [Penal Code] section 11166, subdivision (j), imposes a mandatory duty to cross-report the alleged abuse to law enforcement and other agencies.”
Holman seems somewhat related to K.C. v. County of Merced, in which the Supreme Court granted review two months ago. Although apparently not involving communications from mandated reporters, the issue in K.C. as summarized by court staff (see here) is, “Was plaintiff’s complaint alleging that a social worker failed to investigate or act in response to claims of sexual abuse subject to demurrer on the ground that discretionary act immunity under Government Code section 820.2 precluded liability?”
Dissenting votes: SB 1437 murder resentencing denial
Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Ignacio. The Second District, Division Seven, unpublished opinion affirmed the denial of a resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6, a part of Senate Bill 1437, legislation that eliminated murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and that significantly limited the scope of the felony murder rule.
Division Seven rejected the defendant’s claim there was no substantial evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt he harbored express or implied malice, a finding necessary for murder under the SB 1437 changes to the law. Although the defendant was not the shooter who committed the murder, the appellate court concluded the evidence “support[ed] the superior court’s implied finding [he] committed the acts required and harbored the requisite mental state for aiding and abetting implied malice murder.” It also found the defendant forfeited arguing the superior court should have considered his youth (he had just turned 18 at the time of the murder) in determining whether he harbored implied or express malice.
Dissenting votes: sentence recalls
Justices Liu and Evans also recorded dissents from the denial of review in Lisby v. Superior Court. The First District, Division One, summarily denied a writ petition, but did so with an extended order, although one the court said was “not intended as an exhaustive explanation of our reasoning.”
Division One wrote that “the record fails to demonstrate that the superior court adopted a policy concerning defense-initiated Penal Code section 1172.1 motions that interferes with sentencing judges’ authority to grant such relief on their own motion.” (Link added.) According to the order, the petitioner complained that the superior court “adopted a policy that interferes with sentencing judges’ ability to receive notice of, or to act upon, freestanding, defense-initiated section 1172.1 motions unrelated to any then-pending actions.”
Last year, six of the Supreme Court’s justices issued a separate statement in Baker v. Superior Court warning a superior court against limiting defendants’ ability to seek resentencing on a judge’s own motion. (See here.)
Dissenting votes: Racial Justice Act denial
And Justices Liu and Evans recorded dissents from the denial of review in People v. Wilson. A Second District, Division Six, 2-1 published opinion affirmed a conviction of human trafficking and kidnapping. The opinion decided various different arguments and the dissenting votes are not explained, so it’s not entirely clear which issue or issues attracted Justice Liu’s and Evans’s attention (there’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled), but it was probably the defendant’s claim that the prosecutor violated the California Racial Justice Act (here and here).
Division Six framed the RJA issue this way: “In a sex trafficking case, is defense counsel ineffective, as a matter of law, if counsel does not object to the prosecutor’s referral to the black defendant as a ‘gorilla pimp’ during closing argument to the jury?”
Even though the Attorney General conceded counsel was ineffective and asked for a conditional reversal, the majority concluded the defendant’s “claim of ineffective counsel should be resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding instead of on appeal.” The majority wrote, “ ‘Gorilla pimp’ is a term of art used in the sex worker subculture to describe a pimp who uses force and violence to recruit or control his prostitutes. At no time did the prosecutor compare appellant to an actual gorilla.” The dissent, however, asserted, “No satisfactory explanation exists for failing to object to such a clear violation [of the RJA]” and said that “no reasonable tactic or strategy justified counsel’s inaction.”
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were three criminal case grant-and-holds this week: two more waiting for a decision in People v. Eaton (see here) and one more on hold for People v. Munoz (see here).
Criminal case grant-and-transfers
The court granted review in one case and transferred it back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the January gang-enhancement decision in People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388 (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court continues to make its way through the large number of cases that were grant-and-holds for the June sentencing retroactivity decision decision in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050. The court dismissed review in 40 of those cases yesterday. By our count, that’s on top of 115 other Rhodius grant-and-holds in which the court earlier either dismissed review or converted the cases to grant-and-holds for People v. Espino. (See here, here, and here.)