Here’s a recap of Supreme Court actions taken at yesterday’s conference.
Review: “meaningful” resentencing
The court will hear People v. Andrews. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the denial of a “meaningful” sentence reduction in a resentencing proceeding recommended by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under Penal Code section 1172.1.
The defendant, who was sentenced in 2006 to life in prison with the possibility of parole plus other terms for premeditated attempted murder and other crimes, relied on a statement of legislative intent — in a 2023 bill amending section 1172.1 — that resentencing under the statute should “result in a meaningful modification” and that “ ‘Meaningful modification’ means it will cause some actual change in the person’s circumstances, including, but not limited to, immediate release, earlier release, and newly acquired entitlement to review by the Board of Parole Hearings or the advancement of eligibility for a parole hearing.”
The Fifth District found it important that section 1172.1 itself doesn’t include a “meaningful modification” requirement and said “the clear and unambiguous language of the statute establishes the trial court has broad discretion in resentencing a defendant; it does not limit the court’s sentencing authority beyond requiring that a ‘new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.’ ”
[August 1 update: Here are the issues as summarized by court staff (see here) — “(1) If a trial court recalls a defendant’s sentence upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1, is there a presumption that the defendant will not be resentenced to the same effective term? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by resentencing defendant to the same effective term?”]
An un-hold and new lead case for dozens of grant-and-holds: Prior-prison enhancement resentencing
People v. Espino was a grant-and-hold for People v. Rhodius and People v. Montgomery. Rhodius was decided in June and the remittitur issued on Monday, and Montgomery was transferred back to the Court of Appeal seven months ago.
However, instead of either dismissing review or remanding the case for reconsideration in light of Rhodius (the actions taken in the vast majority of grant-and-hold cases), the Supreme Court un-held Espino and ordered briefing on this issue: “Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken?” (Emphasis added.) In Rhodius, 17 Cal.5th 1050, the court held there should be resentencing even if the enhancement was imposed but then stayed and it specifically found to be “beyond the scope of this case” whether “defendants with stricken prior-prison-term enhancements are not entitled to the statute’s resentencing procedures.”
The Sixth District’s 2-1 partially published Espino opinion held section 1172.75 resentencing is proper “whenever a prison prior was imposed, whether punishment was executed, stayed, or struck.” The dissent did “not read the requirement of an ‘imposed’ sentence enhancement to be satisfied where the enhancing punishment was stricken.”
The Supreme Court also executed a wholesale conversion of 36 Rhodius grant-and-holds, making them now Espino grant-and-holds.
Another headless PAGA grant-and-hold
Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. is another grant-and-hold for Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (see here), in which the court limited the issues to: “1.) Does every Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims? 2.) Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?”
The Second District, Division Six, published opinion interpreted a since-revised PAGA provision, concluding an employee could assert non-individual PAGA claims even though he didn’t suffer a Labor Code violation within the one-year statute of limitations.
Because the underlying Leeper lawsuit has been dismissed at the plaintiff’s request, we guessed the Supreme Court would dismiss review in Leeper and straight grant in another case raising the same issues. That hasn’t happened, at least not yet. In fact, the parties are in the middle of briefing in Leeper, the opening brief having been filed two weeks ago. Other Leeper grant-and-hold are Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services Ltd., LLC (see here) and Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (see here).
Grant and transfer: Prop. 36 and mental health diversion
The court granted review in Valentine v. Superior Court and sent the case back to the First District, Division Two, which had summarily denied the writ petition in the case, for a decision on the merits.
The petition for review, which was filed with permission one court day late (see: Getting relief for a late petition for review might not be a hopeless cause), claims the superior court wrongly denied to the defendant diversion to mental health treatment as an alternative to prosecution for possession and possession for sale of controlled substances, including fentanyl.
The superior court ruled the defendant would have been eligible for diversion were it not for Proposition 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act approved at last year’s election. The petition states the superior court “found her unsuitable on the basis that ‘the selling of Fentanyl is part of the super strike’ given the recent enactment of Proposition 36 by voters.”
Depublication: Forfeiture of jury instruction objection
The court granted requests to depublish the Second District, Division Eight, opinion in Tillinghast v. Los Angeles Unified School District. There was no petition for review of the decision, which affirmed a $15,000,000 award for the death of a middle school student who died from heart failure because teachers didn’t know the school had a defibrillator that could have saved him.
Division Eight held the school district forfeited its appellate challenge to a given jury instruction because the district “did not object or seek to modify” the instruction. (Italics omitted.) One of two depublication requests, by the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, claimed that, if left on the books, the opinion would “create confusion regarding California’s well-established rule that an appealing party is deemed to have objected to an erroneous jury instruction that it did not propose, and does not forfeit that objection on appeal for failing to object to the instruction during trial.”
Pardon recommendation
The court granted Governor Gavin Newsom’s May request for a constitutionally required recommendation that allows him to pardon Reginold Daniels for 1989, 1993, and 2009 convictions of drug-related felony offenses and 1991 and 1997 convictions of possession of a firearm as a felon.
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 76 of his other requests (not counting 10 that are still pending (see here, here, and here)). 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.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were five criminal case grant-and-holds: one more holding for a decision in People v. Fletcher (see here), which was argued almost two months ago; one more on hold for People v. Esquivias (see here); one more waiting for J.O. v. Superior Court (see here); and two more on hold for People v. Munoz (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
Besides un-holding one case that was waiting for the June decision in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 and converting another 36 to grant-and-holds for a different lead case (see above), the court also dismissed review in three other Rhodius grant-and-holds.
