There were no straight grants at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference, but there were some actions of interest, including:
- We previously noted that the Court of Appeal COVID-19 emergency extension orders have caused the Supreme Court to hold and delay filing petitions for review that are submitted, but are premature because of the extension orders. Supreme Court action yesterday on one petition shows that, despite the delay, the court is getting to work on at least some premature petitions before their official filing. Counsel submitted a petition for review in People v. Sheppard on March 17, but, because of the Sixth District’s extension order (and because the petition would have been a couple of days early even without the extension order), the petition wasn’t filed until April 21. The Supreme Court, however, had promptly requested and received the appellate record and yesterday, just eight days after filing the petition (and 12 days before the deadline for filing an answer), it issued a grant-and-hold order.
- Potential attorney conflicts of interest in death penalty matters continue to attract the court’s attention. (See, e.g., here.) In In re Self, the court exercised its discretion to retain for decision a capital habeas corpus petition filed prior to Proposition 66 (see here), and it ordered superior court hearings regarding “why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the ground that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of the trial because counsel was law partners with the attorney representing codefendant Orlando Gene Romero.” Only five justices voted for that action; Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan did not.
- The court asked for supplemental briefing on Sanchez issues (see here and here) in a death penalty appeal, People v. Navarro. The parties are to address: “Was expert testimony that is excludable under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez) admitted at defendant’s trial? If so, can the admission of such evidence be asserted as a ground for reversal in this appeal (see, e.g., People v. Perez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1)? Assuming affirmative answers to the first two questions, was the admission of such testimony prejudicial to defendant?”
- The court denied review in People v. Johnson, but Justice Goodwin Liu recorded a vote to grant as to the first issue in one defendant’s petition. Justice Liu’s specification of the issue that drew his vote helps somewhat in identifying what is of interest to him (see here), but not entirely, because the petition for review is not readily available. We’re guessing the issue is the only one addressed in the published portion of the Fourth District, Division Two opinion, which rejected the argument that a juvenile fitness hearing — to determine whether a defendant who committed a crime as a minor should be tried as an adult — could be waived only by the defendant personally and not by his attorney.
- In In re Woods, after a divided Second District, Division One, Court of Appeal summarily denied a pro per’s habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court granted review (after allowing the filing of an untimely petition for review) and transferred the matter back to the appellate court to decide whether relief for the petitioner is warranted “on the grounds that the failure to provide him with a youth offender hearing violates his right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution. (See People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 382 [see here]; People v. Edwards (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 183.)” (Link added.)
- In another pro per habeas corpus proceeding, this one initiated in the Supreme Court, the court issued an order to show cause, in the Court of Appeal, whether relief in In re Smith should be granted based on the claim “there was insufficient evidence to support the robbery-murder special circumstance finding under People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 609-623 and People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788.”
- Including Sheppard (see above), there were six criminal case grant-and-holds: two more holding for a decision in People v. Frahs (see here), which was argued earlier this month; two holding for People v. Bryant (see here); and one each for People v. Lopez (see here) and People v. Tirado (see here).
