This is the second part of a recap of some notable actions at last week’s Supreme Court conference. Part I is here.
Dissenting vote: sealed juvenile court records
The court denied review in Petitioner 1 v. California Office of the Inspector General, but Justice Liu recorded a dissenting vote. In an unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal held the state’s Office of the Inspector General, which oversees the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, didn’t abuse its discretion in withdrawing a job offer to the plaintiff, a former ward of the California Youth Authority, because he had misrepresented information in his personal history statement by not disclosing all CDCR employees, inmates, or wards that he knew.
The plaintiff argued the job withdrawal was based on his refusal to disclose privileged information about his sealed juvenile proceeding. But Division Four concluded statutes that “protect records in juvenile court proceedings” did not “prevent the OIG from asking about an applicant’s knowledge of CDCR employees, inmates, and wards.”
Dissenting vote: resentencing jurisdiction
Justice Groban recorded a dissent from the denial of review in People v. Sidebottom. The Second District, Division Five, in an unpublished opinion, dismissed an appeal from a resentencing denial “without prejudice to defendant, the People, the trial court, or the CDCR seeking to correct defendant’s sentence through a valid procedure.” The appellate court also declined to treat the appeal as a habeas corpus petition.
Division Five went with “the weight of authority rejecting” the Fourth District, Division One, decision in People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976. It held that “trial courts lack any inherent, free-floating jurisdiction to correct non-clerical errors in a sentence like the one defendant seeks through a full resentencing.”
A concurring justice wrote that “the law on whether the unauthorized sentence rule confers jurisdiction to resentence a defendant is unsettled,” citing “a split in the Courts of Appeal” and what “appear to be conflicting observations in our Supreme Court’s own case law. ” Also, although signing the opinion that rejected Codinha, he “reiterate[d]” Codinha‘s “observation [that] it would be better if the law in this area were clearer.”
Depublication denied: Lemon Law
The court denied depublication requests in Towns v. Hyundai Motor America, a case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for a defective car. There was no petition for review.
The Second District, Division Four, opinion, which was originally only partially published, held (1) a driver of a defective car who didn’t buy the car “does not have standing to pursue a claim under the Act,” (2) if the defective car is wrecked in an accident, insurance payments the owner receives “do not reduce the amount of damages available under the Act,” and (3) the jury had the discretion to award prejudgment interest because the car manufacturer’s “obligations under the Act do not ‘aris[e] from contract’ within the meaning of [Civil Code] section 3288.”
Horvitz & Levy filed one of the depublication requests, which criticized the second and third holdings.
