Yesterday was a third straight conference without any straight grants. But, as usual, there were some actions of note, including:
Separate concurrence on denial of review
Grant-and-transfer: secret warrants for digital data
The court granted review in Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Court and sent the case back to the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal, which had summarily denied the writ petition in the case, for a decision on the merits.
The redacted petition for review claims a superior court order violated California’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act by requiring to be kept secret a police warrant for information stored in the cloud on a service provider’s system. The service provider wanted to notify its customer that the customer’s information was being collected. The petition asks for a decision “mak[ing] clear that in evaluating such secrecy orders, courts must hold the government to its burden to show that the full scope of its suppression of speech is justified—consistent with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and CalECPA itself.”
Grant-and-transfer: suppression of blood test results in DUI case
The court also granted and transferred in People v. Superior Court (Feghhi) after the Sixth District summarily denied a prosecution writ petition.
According to the petition for review, the superior court suppressed the blood test results of a defendant arrested for drunk driving murder. The blood draw was ordered by a warrant, but the superior court ruled the police officer’s affidavit supporting the warrant improperly omitted disclosing that the defendant had consented to a breath test.
Racial Justice Act OSC
Ruling on a pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Jones, the court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, “why petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e), in light of statistical data provided by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Alameda County’s arrest and prison incarceration rates.” Section 1473(e) is part of California’s Racial Justice Act. (See here and here.)
The court has made numerous similar orders before. (See recently here.)
Clemency recommendations
The court granted Governor Gavin Newsom’s requests (here) for constitutionally required recommendations that allow him to pardon Kevin Thompson and August Sterling. According to the Governor’s requests, Thompson was convicted in 1979 of second degree burglary and, in 1982, of grand theft with a firearm; Sterling was convicted in 1983 of drug-related offenses.
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 84 of his other requests (not counting two that are still pending). 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.
Dissenting votes: juvenile de facto LWOP resentencing
Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Nania. A Second District, Division Seven, unpublished opinion affirmed the denial of a resentencing petition by a defendant who was sentenced to 40 years to life for a murder committed when he was 17.
The defendant sought relief under Penal Code section 1170, which generally permits resentencing of some defendants who were sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when they were minors, and under the Fourth District, Division One, decision in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, which held that, consistent with equal protection principles, resentencing must also be allowed for those sentenced to the “functional equivalent of life without parole.”
Noting that the defendant will be eligible for parole when he is 56, Division Seven said, “Although the Courts of Appeal are divided as to whether a sentence of 50 years to life is the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence, we agree with the Attorney General that a 40-years-to-life sentence is not.”
In June, the Supreme Court granted review in People v. Munoz to decide whether a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life in prison is entitled to recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1), on the ground that the sentence is the functional equivalent of life imprisonment without parole. (See here; see also here.)
The court’s denial of review in Nania is “without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be entitled after this court decides . . . Munoz.” Justices Liu and Evans have dissented in similar cases. (See recently here.)
Dissenting votes: youth offender parole denial
Justices Liu and Evans also recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Saucedo. In an unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division One, 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.)
Dissenting votes: juror removal
Justices Liu and Evans also recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Olivarria. A 2-1 Third District unpublished opinion affirmed a conviction for lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 years old. The opinion rejected multiple arguments, so it’s not clear what issue or issues attracted the dissenting votes. (There’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled.) But the issue that drew a dissent was the superior court’s dismissal of a juror for failing to deliberate.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were two criminal case grant-and-holds this week: one more waiting for a decision in People v. Esquivias (see here) and one more holding for People v. Espino (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court disposed of 25 grant-and-hold cases.
Fourteen were waiting for the August Indian Child Welfare Act decision in In re Ja.O. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 271 (see here). Review was dismissed in one and the other 13 were sent back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of In re Ja.O.
The court also ruled on more cases that had been holding for the March murder resentencing opinion in People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (see here). Review was dismissed in eight and three were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Patton.
