Here is the second part of a recap of the conference at which the Supreme Court agreed to hear four more cases. Part I is here.
Another Racial Justice Act OSC
The court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in the pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Williams involving a claim under California’s Racial Justice Act (see here, here, and here).
Cause is to be shown “why petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e)(5) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of the Racial Justice Act] in light of statistical data cited by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in the imposition of gang and firearm use enhancements in San Bernardino County and to the disclosure of discovery pursuant to Penal Code, section 745, subdivision (d) [providing for the disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential violation of the Racial Justice Act in the possession or control of the state].”
The court has made many orders like this before. (See here and, recently, here.)
Dissenting votes: Racial Justice Act
The court denied a pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Garcia, which sought relief under the Racial Justice Act, but Justices Liu and Evans recorded votes to issue an order to show cause.
The court’s three-paragraphs-long denial order says the petitioner asserted that he was treated more harshly in being charged, convicted, and sentenced than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in Sacramento County and that the County’s prosecutors sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share his race, ethnicity, or national origin. Unlike in In re Williams (above), the court concluded the petition didn’t show a possible entitlement to counsel or discovery under the RJA because the petitioner “fail[ed] to allege particularized facts that support a claim” of disparate treatment and he didn’t “describe or attach supporting documentary evidence concerning [his] claims.”
Bail grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in In re Mojarro and sent the case back to the Third District Court of Appeal, which had summarily denied the habeas corpus petition in the matter.
The Third District is now required to issue an order to show cause “why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the ground the Yolo County Superior Court’s December 19, 2025, bail order failed to address the feasibility of less restrictive alternatives to $1 million bail with sufficient specificity to facilitate review of its detention order. (In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135, 154-156.)” (Regarding Humphrey, see here.)
OSC: jury trial on sentencing enhancement
The court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, on the pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Cabrera. Cause is to be shown “whether the sentencing court’s imposition of the five-year enhancement under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 constitutes an unauthorized sentence, such that it should be corrected.”
Apprendi held that, other than “the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here), including two by divided votes
Two cases that were waiting for the murder resentencing decision in People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867 (see here and here) were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Emanuel. Uncommonly, only four justices (Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Evans) voted for the dispositions; Chief Justice Guerrero and Justice Corrigan did not. (See here and here.)
One case that was on hold for the Three Strikes opinion in People v. Shaw (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1089 (see here) was remanded for reconsideration in light of Shaw. All six justices voted for that disposition.
Review denied: gubernatorial candidate disqualification
The court denied the petition for review in Gilbert v. Superior Court. The petition, filed by a pro per two days earlier, sought to disqualify a candidate for governor based on an alleged failure to meet the residency requirements of article V, section 2, of the California Constitution. The candidate, unnamed in the petition except for being listed in the caption as one of two real parties in interest, is Congressman Eric Swalwell. (See here.)
