This is Part II of the report on Wednesday’s Supreme Court conference. Part I is here.
Dissenting vote: Prop. 65
The court denied review and two depublication requests in Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Pancho Villa’s, Inc., but Justice Groban recorded a vote to hear the case. The Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal opinion reinstated a lawsuit under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which was added by Proposition 65 in 1986. The superior court had dismissed the action, which alleged the defendant’s tortillas exposed consumers to a known carcinogen, because the plaintiff had not properly complied with the Act’s 60-day notice requirements.
Division One held “a party’s failure to strictly comply with a particular procedural step of the notice requirements” won’t necessarily invalidate a Prop. 65 action. Instead, the court concluded, the notice statute “is to be given directory effect and substantial compliance is the governing test.”
Dissenting votes: murder resentencing
Justices Liu and Evans recorded dissents from the denial of review in People v. Bacha. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the denial of a petition to vacate a sentence for an attempted murder that occurred almost 30 years ago. The petition was filed under Penal Code section 1172.6, part of SB 1437, 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.
Relying on a Court of Appeal opinion in which review has been granted (People v. Robinson (see here)), Division Three held it was OK for the superior court to consider codefendants’ preliminary hearing testimony because the defendant “does not have a Sixth Amendment right to confrontation at an 1172.6 evidentiary hearing.” Division Three alternatively concluded any error in that regard was harmless because the form by which the defendant had pleaded guilty to the attempted murder “established, beyond a reasonable doubt, facts meeting the elements of a still valid theory of attempted murder.”
SB 1437 cases have taken up a substantial part of the Supreme Court’s docket.
Dissenting votes: juvenile de facto LWOP resentencing
Justices Liu and Evans also recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Bejarano and People v. Caballero. In unpublished opinions, the Second District, Division Three, in Bejarano and the Second District, Division Four, in Caballero affirmed denials of resentencing petitions by defendants serving 40 years to life sentences for crimes committed when they were 17 and 16, respectively.
The defendants sought relief under Penal Code section 1170, which generally permits resentencing of some defendants who were sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when they were minors, and under the Fourth District, Division One, decision in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, which held that, consistent with equal protection principles, resentencing must also be allowed for those sentenced to the “functional equivalent of life without parole.” Divisions Three and Four held the defendants had not been sentenced to LWOP-equivalent terms.
The Supreme Court last year granted review in People v. Munoz to decide whether a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life in prison is entitled to recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1), on the ground that the sentence is the functional equivalent of life imprisonment without parole. (See here; see also here.)
50 years to life sentences are getting the court’s attention; lesser, but still very lengthy, sentences, not so much. (See here.)
The Bejarano and Caballero denials of review are “without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be entitled after this court decides . . . Munoz.” Justices Liu and Evans have dissented in similar cases. (See recently here.)
Dissenting votes: youth offender parole denial
Justices Liu and Evans again dissented from the denial of review in two cases rejecting constitutional challenges to a statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life without parole sentences for special circumstances murders committed between ages 18 and 25 — People v. Brazeal-Nelson and People v. Thomas. In a similar case, People v. Cervantes, only Justice Evans recorded a dissent.
In Brazeal-Nelson, the First District, Division Five, unpublished opinion affirmed the defendant’s LWOP sentence for a murder he committed when he was 19. The Second District, Division Five, in its unpublished opinion in Thomas, held the defendant wasn’t eligible for a Franklin hearing (see here) after imposition of an LWOP sentence, also for a murder committed when he was 19. In Cervantes, the Fourth District, Division Two, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the denial of a Franklin hearing motion after an LWOP sentence for aiding and abetting a murder when the defendant was under 26.
In People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, the Supreme Court found unavailing an equal protection attack. (See here.) Justices Liu and Evans dissented there. After Hardin, they have been regularly dissenting from review denials in youth offender parole denial cases, including once with a separate statement asserting that cruel-or-unusual-punishment issues should be addressed. (See here and recently here; see also here.)
Dissenting vote: imperfect self-defense
In yet another pair of dissenting votes, Justices Liu and Evans wanted the court to hear People v. Chang. The Fifth District held in a published opinion that the defendant was not entitled to an imperfect self defense instruction.
The appellate court reported the defendant led police officers on a car chase and engaged in a gun battle with them because he “suffered from delusions that he was being pursued by CIA agents who intended to harm or kill him.” It concluded the defendant’s claim failed under the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, which “stands for the proposition that imperfect self-defense may not be invoked by one who is operating entirely under the influence of a delusion, without an ‘objective correlate.’ ”
Imperfect self-defense based on delusion has been an issue of interest to Justices Liu and Evans. (See here and here.)
Review denied: solar energy rate challenge
The court denied review in the second Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission case, which concerned the validity of a 2022 PUC tariff that lowered the price utilities pay for excess power generated by customers, mostly by solar energy systems. Last August, in Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 293, the court held the Court of Appeal had used an overly deferential standard of review in upholding the tariff. (See here.)
On remand, the First District, Division Three, in a published opinion, again affirmed the PUC tariff decision.
Review denied: implied malice in vehicular murder case
The court also declined to hear People v. Grossman, in which the defendant was convicted of second degree murder and other things for killing two young boys crossing a street while she was driving at an excessive speed. The case, and a subsequent civil lawsuit, have garnered much media attention. (See here and here.)
In a 143-page unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Five, rejected 11 different arguments for reversal, including that the superior court had incorrectly instructed the jury on the implied malice necessary to support a murder conviction.
Implied malice in vehicular murder cases has attracted the attention of Justices Liu and Evans in the past (see here, here, here, and here), but neither recorded a vote to hear the case.
