Actions of note at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference — another double one — included:
- Court of Appeal directed to address on the merits the denial of DA’s motion to withdraw sentence enhancements
- Supreme Court approves commutations of two LWOP sentences; one recommendation request continues to languish
- The court agreed to hear In re D.P., where a divided unpublished opinion by the Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal dismissed as moot appeals by parents from a juvenile court order finding jurisdiction over their two-month-old son because he had “suffered . . . serious physical harm . . ., as a result of the failure or inability of his . . . parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect” him (Welf, & Inst. Institutions Code, section 300, subd. (b)). The majority found mootness because “the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the child” during the appeals. The dissent asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support the jurisdictional finding and that the appeal was not moot because the finding will cause the parents’ neglect to be entered into a state child abuse central index and because “common sense tells us that no parent wants to be branded a child abuser.”
- The court granted and transferred in Bixler v. Superior Court, sending the case back to the Second District, Division Five, after that court, by a 2-1 vote, summarily denied a writ petition. In its denial order, the appellate court said, “Petitioners have an adequate remedy by way of appeal if the trial court enters an order confirming an adverse arbitration award.” The petition for review and the answer say that the petitioners are former Church of Scientology members suing for harassment after they reported sexual assault against them by another Church member, actor Danny Masterson (see here and here), and that they signed agreements promising to follow Scientology ecclesiastical justice procedures.
- The court denied review in Organizacion Comunidad De Alviso v. City of San Jose over Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar’s recorded vote to grant. The Sixth District’s published opinion came to “the uncomfortable conclusion” that the plaintiff’s action alleging CEQA violations was untimely even though the defendant City had violated a CEQA procedural requirement.
- The court transferred another capital habeas corpus petition to the superior court under Proposition 66. (See here and here.)
- There were 18 criminal case grant-and-holds: three more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here), which was argued last week; two more holding for People v. Delgadillo (see here); three more holding for People v. Strong (see here); two more holding for Lewis and Delgadillo; three more holding for Lewis and Strong (that’s a total of 274 Lewis grant-and-holds); two more holding for People v. Lopez (see here); one more holding for People v. Duke (see here); one holding for People v. Williams (see here); and one more holding for In re Mohammad (see here).
