Yesterday’s Supreme Court conference might be better remembered for what wasn’t ruled on, but the court did grant review in a case with an unusual procedural context. Here’s more about that matter and some other highlights:
Splits on resentencing.
The court agreed to hear People v. Robinson, where not only were the Third District Court of Appeal justices in disagreement, so were prosecutors. The appellate court’s 2-1 published opinion in yet another SB 1437 resentencing case (see here, here, here, and here) affirmed the denial of a petition to resentence the defendant who had pleaded no contest to attempted murder over 10 years earlier. The dispute is whether a superior court can consider grand jury testimony in deciding if a defendant meets the criteria for resentencing under SB 1437 and subsequent amending legislation, which narrowed liability under the felony murder and the natural and probable consequences doctrines.
The Attorney General, agreeing with the defendant, conceded that grand jury testimony is not admissible and that the petition denial should be reversed. The district attorney who prosecuted the case, however, filed an amicus curiae brief arguing the opposite. The Third District majority agreed with the district attorney, while the dissent found the defendant’s and Attorney General’s position more compelling.
The Third District said it was “unpersuaded” by the Second District, Division Two, decision in People v. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, which, accepting an Attorney General concession, found grand jury testimony inadmissible in determining a resentencing petition. The same district attorney who is the amicus in Robinson asked the Supreme Court to depublish Ocobachi; the court denied the request yesterday.
[February 28 update: Here is the issue as summarized by court staff (see here) — “Is a transcript of grand jury proceedings admissible at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing?”]
Racial Justice Act OSC. The court issued an order to show cause in the superior court in In re Lashon on these issues: “(1) whether there is an exception to habeas forfeiture bars for a claim under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 [see here and here] . . . based on the conduct of the trial court judge (In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193; In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218; Pen. Code, §§ 1473, subd. (e), 745, subd. (b)); (2) if there is such an exception to habeas forfeiture bars, why petitioner is not entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act (see Pen. Code, § 745, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2)); or (3) if there is no such exception to habeas forfeiture bars, why trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion under the Racial Justice Act at trial or after sentencing.” In November 2023, the Supreme Court granted review of a First District, Division Three, opinion in Lashon’s unsuccessful direct appeal raising an RJA claim and remanded for reconsideration. (See here.) The Supreme Court then denied review when Division Three again ruled against Lashon. (See here.)
Constructive notice of appeal OSC. The court also issued an order to show cause, returnable before the superior court, in In re Duran, a pro per’s habeas corpus petition. Cause is to be shown “why trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal and why petitioner should not be permitted to file a constructive notice of appeal. (See Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. 470; In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72; Pen. Code, § 1240.1, subd. (b).)”
Not-guilty-by-insanity OSC. A third OSC — again returnable in the superior court — was issued in In re Summers. The habeas corpus petition claims ineffective assistance of counsel in not pursuing a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity plea to a robbery charge. At the court’s request, the Attorney General filed an informal response opposing the petition. The defendant filed a reply.
Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were four criminal case grant-and-holds: two more waiting for a decision in People v. Patton (see here), which was argued in December and should be decided Monday; one more holding for People v. Rhodius (see here); and one more waiting for People v. Allen (see here and here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here).
Four cases that were grant-and-holds for the December hospital-price-disclosure decision in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System (2024) 17 Cal.5th 273 (see here) were disposed of, including a second matter in Capito itself. Review in the second Capito case (see here) was dismissed and the court also dismissed review in Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management (see here) and Salami v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center (see here). Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (see here and here) was returned to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the Capito opinion.
The court sent four cases back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the August prejudicial-sentencing-error decision in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (see here).
