At a big double conference yesterday (there were 153 rulings), the Supreme Court straight granted one case, greenlighted another couple of sentence commutations, and made some notable review denials. The denials that were without dissenting votes will be examined in Part II of this week’s conference recap.
It was another short-handed conference, with just six justices participating because Governor Newsom has left unfilled an eight-month-long vacancy on the court, a situation that might still continue for a while.
Review granted: murder resentencing
The court agreed to hear People v. Player, yet another case involving SB 1437, landmark 2018 legislation that limited criminal liability for felony murder, eliminated it for murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, and allowed for resentencing of certain defendants convicted under pre-SB 1437 law. In granting review, the court limited the issue to: “Is a trial court precluded from finding that a defendant was the actual killer in a Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing proceeding where the jury found not true a personal firearm use enhancement and a robbery-murder special circumstance?”
Affirming the denial of a section 1172.6 resentencing petition, the Second District, Division One, Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, answered the question in the negative, agreeing with the Fourth District, Division One, decision in People v. Hart (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1099. Hart disagreed with People v. Henley (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1003, also from 4/1, and with the First District, Division One, opinion in People v. Cooper (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 393.
There was no petition for review in Hart, Henley, or Cooper, but the court denied an Attorney General request to depublish Henley.
Grant-and-transfer: hearing on possible remote criminal hearing
With a bare majority (Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Evans; not Chief Justice Guerrero or Justice Corrigan), the court granted review in Canizalez v. Superior Court and sent the case back to the Second District, Division Five, which on a 2-1 vote had summarily denied the defendant’s writ petition. Division Five is to issue an alternative writ directing the superior court to “vacate its . . . order requiring petitioner to be physically present at the hearing on petitioner’s motion to dismiss and issue a new order allowing petitioner to appear remotely at the hearing” or to show cause why its order should be upheld.
In denying the writ petition, the Division Five majority said the defendant “fails to demonstrate the [superior] court abused its discretion in requiring him to be physically present in court.” The dissent, however, asserted, “Requiring petitioner to drive thousands of miles and incur expenses in excess of $1,000 to make a personal appearance at a hearing where his presence is not required by law — and for which he has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to be present — is an obvious abuse of discretion and appears punitive. Because this court has declined to intervene, only our Supreme Court can now provide relief.”
OSC: identity of habeas corpus judge for possible disqualification
The court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in the pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Lewis. Cause is to be shown “why petitioner was not entitled to receive notice of the judge assigned to his habeas corpus petition . . . prior to the judge’s ruling on the petition. (See Maas v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 962.)”
The Fifth District had earlier summarily denied a writ of mandate petition, saying, “based on the record we have been provided, we are unable to conclude disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and Maas v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 962, is available to petitioner.”
Regarding Maas, see here.
Clemencies recommended
The court granted Governor Newsom’s requests — made a month ago — for the constitutionally required recommendations that allow him to commute the long sentences of David Sanchez and Anthony Hill.
The Governor’s requests stated:
“In 2009, Mr. Sanchez was convicted of robbery. He was sentenced to a prison term of 41 years to life. In 1998, Mr. Sanchez sustained a felony conviction, also for robbery.”
“In 2003, Mr. Hill was convicted of robbery. He was sentenced to a prison term of 43 years and 8 months. Mr. Hill has prior felony convictions for burglary (1985, 1987), robbery (1990), assault on a peace officer/fireman (1990), and sell/furnish marijuana/hash (1995).”
The requests said Newsom “is contemplating” the commutations “would make [each man] eligible for an earlier parole suitability hearing.” (Related: “Newsom grants clemency, but freedom isn’t certain”.)
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 98 of his other requests. (Not counting 11 requests 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 vote: landowner liability
Justice Groban recorded a dissent from the denial of review in Ornelas v. De Jong’s Dover Dairy. The Fifth District’s unpublished opinion reversed a summary judgment for a company against a contractor’s employee who was injured while working on a job for which the company had hired the contractor. The case involves issues under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, which generally places on independent contractors the responsibility for workplace safety.
The Fifth District held the employee “raised a triable issue of material fact with respect to the scope of [the contractor’s] work, which in turn informs its duty to inspect the premises, and whether a reasonable inspection under that duty would have discovered the latent hazard [that led to the employee’s injury].”
Horvitz & Levy filed the petition for review, which phrased the issue, “may an employee of an independent contractor defeat summary judgment under Kinsman by submitting an expert declaration opining that the landowner had a duty to conduct an inspection that would have revealed a potential hazard, while simultaneously opining that, if the landowner’s activities created the hazard, the contractor had no duty to conduct that same inspection?”
Dissenting votes: murder resentencing
Speaking of SB 1437 cases (see People v. Player, above), the court denied review in People v. Young, but Justices Liu and Evans recorded votes to hear the case. In a 2-1 unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Five, affirmed the denial of a resentencing petition that sought to vacate two voluntary manslaughter convictions for killings committed by the defendant’s boyfriend. The case had been a grant-and-hold for People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867 (see here and here) and was remanded to Division Five for reconsideration in light of Emanuel.
The majority held the defendant “could still be found guilty of felony murder” for both killings under the law as changed by SB 1437 because “[s]ubstantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings that [the defendant] was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” The dissent agreed as to the second murder, but said the defendant should not have been foreclosed from relief for the first.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were three criminal case grant-and-holds: two more waiting for a decision in People v. Eaton (see here) and one more on hold for People v. Munoz (see here and here).
