The Supreme Court today dismissed review in In re Montgomery, in which the court granted review a year ago 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))?”
The order says the dismissal is “without prejudice to any new motion under Penal Code, section 745, subdivision (d), that petitioner may file. (. . . Assembly Bill No. 1071 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.) § 3, eff. January 1, 2026 [adding Penal Code 1473, subdivision (e)(2): ‘A petitioner, or their counsel, may file a motion for relevant evidence under subdivision (d) of Section 745 upon the prosecution of a petition under this subdivision, or in preparation to file a petition’].)” AB 1071 was signed by the Governor in October.
Last month, the court asked for supplemental briefing “addressing the impact, if any, of [AB 1071] on the issues presented in this matter.” That briefing was completed yesterday.
There are several cases that are — or were — grant-and-holds for Montgomery. The court today dismissed review in at least one of them — People v. Serrano — with the same “without prejudice” caveat as in the Montgomery order.
The court has also denied review and habeas corpus petitions in a number of cases with the comment that the denials are “without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be entitled after this court decides In re Montgomery.” (See recently here and here.) Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans have filed dissenting statements in at least three of those cases. (See recently here.) Apparently, the defendants in those cases, like Montgomery, may file a new motion under the RJA as revised by AB 1071.
