This is part II of a recap of some notable actions taken at the Supreme Court’s Wednesday conference. Part I is here.
Racial Justice Act denial
The court denied review and a depublication request in People v. Superior Court (Lalo). In a published opinion, the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal overturned a superior court discovery order that would have given Lalo a list of all Riverside County rape and first degree burglary cases over a seven-year period, including the defendants’ full names, their ethnicity or racial background, and the charges and enhancements. Lalo, an ethnically Samoan defendant, pointed to a Riverside case where the initial charges were less severe for a white defendant in a residential burglary and rape matter similar to Lalo’s than the charges that were made against Lalo in an amended complaint. He also relied on state and federal statistics showing Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians, and persons of Samoan descent specifically, are overrepresented in California prisons and jails.
Division Two held the facts provided were incomplete and inadequate to draw inferences about the treatment of the white defendant as compared to Lalo. That court also concluded that statewide statistics, as opposed to county statistics, are insufficient to establish an RJA violation of systemic racism.
The Supreme Court’s denial of review was “without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be entitled after this court decides In re Montgomery, S287339,” in which the court has granted review to decide, “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))?” More about Montgomery here and here.
Capital defendant resentencing jurisdiction denial
The court denied a depublication request (after granting relief to file the request late) in People v. Millsap. A Second District, Division Four, published opinion held the defendant with a prior-prison-term enhancement who would normally be entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 could not be resentenced in superior court while the direct automatic appeal of his death sentence remains pending before the Supreme Court. Division Four concluded the superior court “was precluded from interfering with the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the judgment [of death] by conducting a holistic resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.”
The Millsap decision is at odds with the partially published opinion of the Second District, Division Seven, in People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, which held a superior court could resentence a defendant whose appeal of his death sentence is still pending in the Supreme Court, but only “on the noncapital portions of his sentence[,] . . . not on the death sentence.” The Supreme Court granted review in Dixon (see here), to decide the issues, as summarized by court staff (see here), “(1) May a superior court modify a death judgment under the recall and resentencing procedure in Penal Code section 1172.75? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the exclusivity provision of Penal Code section 1509 precludes modification of a death judgment under Penal Code section 1172.75? (3) Did the superior court have jurisdiction to resentence defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 when his appeal was pending before this court?”
The Supreme Court also has before it, on a rare transfer to itself of an appeal pending in the Court of Appeal, People v. Mataele. (See here.) Mataele is an appeal from a superior court order declining to strike different enhancements than the one entitling defendants to resentencing under section 1172.75. Also, the Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s death sentence, but remanded for the superior court to consider whether to strike some enhancements. (People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372 (see here).) The Supreme Court’s transfer order stated, “In addition to any issues raised on appeal concerning the resentencing proceeding below, the parties are directed to brief and argue whether this court has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal, or whether this appeal may be decided by the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); People v. Coleman (1991) 53 Cal.3d 949, 951, fn. 1.)”
Related: the Supreme Court transferred to the Court of Appeal the death penalty appeals in People v. Williams and People v. Rhoades after the defendants were resentenced to non-capital terms. (See here and here.) The First District, Division Three, recently affirmed Rhoades’s conviction and life without parole sentence in an unpublished opinion.
Prop. 66 transfer of capital habeas petition
The court exercised its discretion to transfer the condemned prisoner’s habeas corpus petition in In re Jones to the superior court under Proposition 66 (see here and here). The court affirmed the petitioner’s 1994 death sentence a dozen years ago (People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899) and nine years later affirmed his request for discovery of a prosecutor’s jury selection notes (People v. Superior Court (Jones) (2021) 12 Cal.5th 348) (see here).
The habeas petition was filed in March 2014 and an amended petition was filed in May 2018. Amended briefing on the amended petition wasn’t completed until earlier this month when the petitioner filed a 571-page reply to the Attorney General’s informal response (that was filed seven years ago) and 34 volumes of exhibits.
Prop. 66 has been in effect since October 2017 and the court transferred scores of capital habeas petitions on one day in May 2019.
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
17 more grant-and-holds are off the docket. 13 that were holding for October’s Three Strikes resentencing decision in People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838 (see here) were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Guevara and four that were waiting for June’s murder resentencing opinion in People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867 (see here and here) were returned for reconsideration in light of Emanuel.
