This week’s conference results report does not list any straight grants of review.
There was just one criminal case grant-and-hold, pending the outcome of People v. Munoz (see here and here).
The court also issued two grant-and-transfer orders. In Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company v. W.C.A.B., the court granted review in a workers’ compensation case and sent the case back to the Second Appellate District, Division One, which had summarily denied a writ petition for lack of a final order. The Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeal to reconsider whether the petition challenges a final order.
In In re Reyes, the court granted review and transferred the case back to the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, which had summarily denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court directed the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to show cause why petitioner is not entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.
[September 9 update:
Dissenting vote: Prop. 65 notice
The court denied review and a depublication request in The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. v. The Kroger Company, but Justice Groban recorded a vote to hear the case.
Following the Fourth District, Division One, decision in Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Pancho Villa’s, Inc. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 778, the Second District, Division Three, published opinion in Kroger reversed a judgment on the pleadings the superior court had granted based on a finding that a pre-lawsuit notice required by Prop. 65’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act was flawed. Division Three held that substantial, not strict, compliance with the requirement was enough and that the plaintiff’s notice did substantially comply. In concluding strict compliance wasn’t necessary, the appellate court distanced itself from the Second District, Division Two, opinion in Prang v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 2 (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 1.
The Supreme Court denied review in both Panco Villa’s and Prang. Justice Groban dissented from the denial of review in Pancho Villa’s. (See here.)
Dissenting votes: murder resentencing
Justices Liu and Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Cruz. The Fourth District, Division Three, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the denial of a resentencing petition brougt under Penal Code section 1172.6, part of SB 1437, landmark 2018 legislation that limited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.
Division Three agreed that the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine was now obsolete, but it found substantial evidence to support the superior court’s conclusion that the defendant was guilty of aiding and abetting implied malice murder.
Dissenting votes: mental health diversion, lesser included offense
Justices Liu and Evans also dissented from the court’s denial of review in People v. Dunlap. The Second District, Division Three, opinion (unpublished despite the unsuccessful publication requests by nine different counties’ district attorneys) affirmed convictions of multiple counts of second degree robbery.
Division Three rejected arguments that substantial evidence didn’t support the superior court’s pretrial denial of mental health diversion and that the jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of grand theft as to three of the robbery counts.
It’s unclear which issue or issues garnered the dissenting votes because the votes are unexplained. (There’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled.)]
