At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in an original writ proceeding. Because cause is to be shown before the court and not, as is typical, before a lower court, the order is basically equivalent to a grant of review and it thus counts as stopping at three the number of conferences in a row without a straight grant.
Here are some conference highlights.
Electronic court reporting. The court agreed to decide an original writ petition seeking an increased use of electronic recording when court reporters are unavailable. See: Writ petition advances to require electronic recording of some court proceedings for indigent litigants.
[February 21 update: Here is the issue as summarized by court staff (see here) — “Does the prohibition on electronic recording of certain proceedings in Government Code section 69957, subdivision (a) violate the California Constitution when an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot afford to pay a private court reporter?”]
A murder resentencing almost grant. The court barely denied review in People v. Godlock as Justices Goodwin Liu, Joshua Groban, and Kelli Evans recorded votes to grant. A 2-1 unpublished opinion by the Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a resentencing petition filed by a defendant who had pled guilty to attempted murder before Senate Bill 1437 and subsequent amending legislation took effect. Among other things, the new law eliminated murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The majority held “the record of conviction establishes defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.” The dissenter, however, said, “I agree with the majority’s analysis that the record of conviction conclusively establishes that Godlock acted with the requisite intent to kill (the mens rea). But it does not conclusively establish that Godlock committed the requisite acts (the actus reus).” SB 1437 cases are a mainstay of the Supreme Court’s docket. (See here, here, and here.)
Workers’ compensation grant-and-hold. Ishal v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is another grant-and-hold for Mayor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (see here). The Mayor issues, as summarized by court staff (see here), are: “(1) May the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board apply equitable tolling to act upon a petition for reconsideration beyond the 60-day period provided in Labor Code section 5909, when the Appeals Board did not receive the petition for reconsideration until after the 60-day period has elapsed? (2) Did the Court of Appeal act in excess of its jurisdiction in granting relief under traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), where petitioner did not file a timely petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5909?” In Ishal, the Second District, Division One, Court of Appeal summarily denied a petition for a writ of review.
Transgender discrimination. The court denied review in Dostie v. Marowitz, in which the First District, Division Two, in an unpublished opinion affirmed a $60,000 award and attorney fees against a landlord who the opinion said was found, among other things, to have “discriminated against [the plaintiff, a nonbinary transgender individual] based on their gender identity and disability.” (See Bob Egelko’s article about the case in the San Francisco Chronicle. That piece includes this: “The ruling in Dostie’s case ‘seems to contradict what President Trump said,’ Marowitz said by phone, apparently referring to Trump’s assertion that ‘there are only two genders, male and female,’ and that the U.S. government will no longer recognize transgender status. Asked what he meant, the landlord hung up.”)
Delayed transfer of capital habeas petition. The court exercised its discretion to transfer a condemned prisoner’s habeas corpus petition in In re Sattiewhite to the superior court under Proposition 66 (see here and here). The court unanimously affirmed the prisoner’s death sentence on direct appeal 11 years ago in People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446. The 24-page habeas petition was filed in September 2014. It’s unclear (unclear to me, anyway) why it took so long to transfer the petition. Prop. 66 has been in effect since October 2017 and the court transferred scores of capital habeas petitions on one day in May 2019. Sattiewhite filed in pro per another habeas petition in June 2018. That petition is still pending.
Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were 11 criminal case grant-and-holds: two more waiting for a decision in People v. Patton (see here), which was argued in December; one more holding for In re Hernandez (see here); five more waiting for People v. Rhodius (see here); one more on hold for People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (see here and here); one waiting for People v. Allen (see here and here); and one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here).
