At its double conference yesterday, the Supreme Court took a number of notable actions, including:
Four clemencies approved
See: Supreme Court greenlights LWOP sentence commutation, three other clemencies.
DMV hearing officers
The court granted review in Romane v. Department of Motor Vehicles and it limited the issue to: “Under what circumstances does an administrative per se [APS] hearing officer’s relationship with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) violate a driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator by creating an unacceptable risk of bias during a DMV driver’s license suspension hearing?” The hearing in the case resulted in the license suspension of a driver who refused to submit to chemical testing after a DUI arrest.
The Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal published opinion reversed a superior court ruling that the hearing officer had acted as an advocate and thus violated the driver’s due process rights under the Second District, Division Four, decision in California DUI Lawyers Association v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517. Although recognizing that “[c]ombining advocacy and adjudicatory roles into one person creates an intolerable risk of bias,” Division One held, “where, as here, a hearing officer merely introduces the documents that law enforcement duly forwarded to the DMV, which are routinely admitted into evidence at APS hearings, the officer is merely collecting and developing evidence, not advocating for the DMV.”
Childhood sexual assault immunity grant-and-hold
As predicted, S.C. v. County of Fresno is a grant-and-hold for K.C. v. County of Merced (see here), which is expected to decide whether the foster child plaintiff’s complaint alleging that a social worker failed to investigate or act in response to claims of sexual abuse was subject to demurrer on the ground that discretionary act immunity under Government Code section 820.2 precluded liability.
In S.C., the Fifth District’s unpublished opinion upheld the sustaining on immunity grounds of a demurrer to a complaint alleging a county and its employees negligently placed and supervised a foster child who was sexually abused in a group foster home.
Dependency mootness grant-and-hold
In re B.M. is a grant-and-hold for In re S.R. (see here), in which the issues are: (1) When a juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings establish that a parent committed an offense that the law requires be reported to the statewide Child Abuse Centralized Index (CACI), should an appellate court presume, on an otherwise silent record, the offense has been or will be reported to CACI? (2) If unrebutted, is this presumption sufficient to avoid dismissal for mootness?
The Second District, Division Three, unpublished opinion in B.M. dismissed as moot a mother’s appeal from a juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings that she and the father created a detrimental home environment for their two-year-old son. The appellate court found mootness because the child was not adjudicated a dependent, he remained in the parents’ custody under the child services department’s supervision, the supervision period had ended, the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over the child, and there was only a “mere possibility” that the mother had been included in the CACI.
Depublication: dismissal of police killing case
The court granted a request to depublish the Third District’s opinion in County of Nevada v. Superior Court. There was no petition for review.
The opinion granted a writ requiring summary judgment against the minor plaintiffs suing for the shooting death of their mother at the hands of sheriff’s deputies. Although “shar[ing] the concerns engendered by prior tragic cases around the country in which law enforcement officers have acted unreasonably in their use of force,” the Third District said a deputy who tasered the knife-wielding mother before being fatally wounded by another deputy “acted reasonably as a matter of law.” The appellate court concluded that it didn’t matter whether the deputy failed to follow his training about dealing with mentally ill people — “even if the deputies’ training required better or more reasonable actions, it would not alter our conclusion given the totality of the circumstances.”
Depublication: Arbitration of union grievances
The court denied review in Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521 v. Los Angeles Community College District, but it depublished the belatedly published opinion of the Second District, Division Eight.
Division Eight rejected the plaintiff union’s motion to compel arbitration of three grievances under its collective bargaining agreement with the defendant college district. The appellate court held the grievances were beyond the scope of the arbitration provision in the agreement.
Racial Justice Act OSC
Concerning the pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Nichols, the court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, “why petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e), in light of data provided by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in prison populations in various California counties and racial disparities in sentencing under the Three Strikes law.” Section 1473(e) is part of the California Racial Justice Act (here and here).
Capital appeal transferred after sentence reduction
Over the defendant’s objection, the death penalty appeal in People v. Rhoades was transferred to the Court of Appeal after the defendant was resentenced to a non-capital term. (The court made a similar order in another death penalty appeal in May. (See here.)) Had the defendant unsuccessfully sought resentencing and appealed, the case might have stayed in the Supreme Court to decide the propriety of the resentencing denial. (See the discussion of People v. Mataele here.)
Dissenting vote: discovery of neuropsychological testing data
Justice Joshua Groban recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in Harrington v. Superior Court. The First District, Division Two, had summarily denied the writ petition of a defendant in a car accident case.
According to the petition for review, the superior court allowed a neuropsychological examination of the plaintiff, who is alleging significant psychological damages, but required the defense to turn over to the plaintiff the raw testing data. The defendant submitted declarations from her expert and over 200 other neuropsychologists saying the disclosure order would require them to withdraw from the case because delivering raw psychological testing data to non-psychologists violates their professional duties and goes against the advice of multiple professional psychology associations.
Denial: racially discriminatory redistricting
The court denied review in Chaldean Coalition, Inc. v. The County of San Diego Independent Redistricting Commission. The Fourth District, Division One, unpublished opinion affirmed the superior court’s denial of a writ of mandate petition.
The petition claimed that, in the redrawing of San Diego County’s five supervisorial districts that placed members of the plaintiff Chaldean community (Aramaic-speaking, Eastern Rite Catholics) in different districts, the defendant commission engaged in unconstitutional racially motivated decision making. Division One held that, contrary to the superior court’s ruling, the plaintiff established public interest standing, but concluded that the plaintiff’s racial gerrymandering and one-person-one-vote claims failed.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were 11 criminal case grant-and-holds: four more waiting for a decision in People v. Espino (see here), one more holding for In re Montgomery (see here), one on hold for People v. SanMiguel (see here), one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here), one waiting for People v. Robinson (see here), and three more waiting for People v. Eaton (see here).
Criminal case grant-and-transfers
The court granted review in eight cases and transferred them back to the Courts of Appeal. Six are to be reconsidered in light of the June sentencing retroactivity decision in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 (see here). The other two will be reconsidered in light of the June felony murder resentencing opinion in People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867. (See here and here.)
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court dismissed review in Ayers v. FCA US, which was a grant-and-hold (see here) waiting for the March section 998 cost-shifting opinion in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motors America (2025) 17 Cal.5th 592. (See here and here). Horvitz & Levy was appellate counsel for the prevailing defendant.
The court also dismissed review in one case that had been a criminal case grant-and-hold waiting for June’s murder-resentencing opinion in People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867 (see here and here).
New lead case for dozens of grant-and-holds: Prior-prison enhancement resentencing
At its last conference, the court un-held People v. Espino, which had been a grant-and-hold for People v. Rhodius and People v. Montgomery, and ordered briefing. (See here.) It also at the same time converted 36 other Rhodius grant-and-holds, making them Espino grant-and-holds. This week, 39 more Rhodius grant-and-holds became Espino grant-and-holds. (See also above regarding four new Espino grant-and-holds and six grant-and-transfer orders in cases requiring Courts of Appeal to reconsider in light of the Rhodius decision.)
