Yesterday’s California Supreme Court conference yielded significant actions, including granting review in a notable case concerning resentencing and issuing orders to show cause in matters related to the Racial Justice Act and ineffective counsel. While some anticipated rulings were absent, the court’s decisions provide valuable insights into its current focus. Here’s a breakdown of the key highlights from the conference:
Splits on Resentencing: The Robinson Case
The court has agreed to review People v. Robinson, a case highlighting a division not only among appellate court justices but also within the prosecution itself. This case revolves around SB 1437 resentencing, a frequently revisited topic by the Supreme Court. The core dispute in Robinson is whether a superior court can consider grand jury testimony when evaluating a defendant’s eligibility for resentencing under SB 1437 and subsequent amendments. These legislative changes significantly narrowed the scope of felony murder and natural and probable consequences doctrines.
In the Third District Court of Appeal, a 2-1 published opinion upheld the denial of resentencing for a defendant who had pleaded no contest to attempted murder over a decade prior. Adding to the complexity, the Attorney General sided with the defendant, conceding that grand jury testimony should be inadmissible and advocating for the reversal of the petition denial. Conversely, the district attorney who originally prosecuted the case filed an amicus curiae brief arguing for the admissibility of such testimony. The Third District majority ultimately sided with the district attorney, disagreeing with the dissent which found the defendant’s and Attorney General’s arguments more persuasive.
The Third District explicitly stated its disagreement with the Second District, Division Two, ruling in People v. Ocobachi. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, accepting the Attorney General’s concession, deemed grand jury testimony inadmissible in resentencing petition hearings. Interestingly, the same district attorney acting as amicus in Robinson had requested the Supreme Court to depublish Ocobachi, a request that was denied by the court yesterday.
February 28 update: The central question in People v. Robinson is: “Is a transcript of grand jury proceedings admissible at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing?” This question, as summarized by court staff, underscores the nuanced legal issue the Supreme Court will now address.
Racial Justice Act OSC: In re Lashon
In In re Lashon, the court issued an order to show cause concerning a claim under the Racial Justice Act of 2020. The OSC in the superior court raises three critical questions:
- Is there an exception to habeas forfeiture bars for claims under the Racial Justice Act based on the conduct of the trial court judge, referencing precedents like In re Seaton and In re Waltreus?
- If such an exception exists, why isn’t the petitioner entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act, specifically Pen. Code, § 745, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2)?
- If no such exception to habeas forfeiture bars is recognized, was trial counsel ineffective for not filing a motion under the Racial Justice Act at trial or after sentencing?
This OSC follows a complex procedural history. In November 2023, the Supreme Court initially granted review of a First District, Division Three, decision in Lashon’s direct appeal, which raised an RJA claim, and remanded it for reconsideration. However, after Division Three again ruled against Lashon, the Supreme Court subsequently denied review, only to now issue this order to show cause. This indicates the court’s continued engagement with the complexities of applying the Racial Justice Act.
Constructive Notice of Appeal OSC: In re Duran
The court also issued an order to show cause in In re Duran, returnable before the superior court, concerning a pro per habeas corpus petition. The question to be addressed is “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.” This order references key cases like Roe v. Flores-Ortega and In re Benoit, along with Pen. Code, § 1240.1, subd. (b), highlighting the court’s concern with ensuring effective legal representation and access to appellate review.
Not-Guilty-By-Insanity OSC: In re Summers
A third order to show cause, again returnable in the superior court, was issued in In re Summers. This habeas corpus petition alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity plea to a robbery charge. The Attorney General had previously filed an informal response opposing the petition, which was followed by a reply from the defendant. The court’s issuance of an OSC suggests a further examination of the claims related to ineffective counsel and the potential viability of an insanity defense.
Criminal Case Grant-and-Holds
The conference included four criminal case grant-and-holds. Two of these are additional cases held pending the decision in People v. Patton, argued in December and anticipated to be decided soon. Patton addresses [mention the issue briefly if known, or just say “issues related to criminal procedure”]. One case remains held for People v. Rhodius, concerning [mention the issue briefly if known, or just say “issues related to criminal procedure”]. Finally, one case is held for People v. Allen, which concerns [mention the issue briefly if known, or just say “issues related to criminal procedure”]. These grant-and-holds illustrate the court’s strategic use of its docket to manage related cases efficiently.
Grant-and-Hold Dispositions
The court disposed of four cases that were grant-and-holds for the December decision in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, concerning hospital-price-disclosure. These dispositions included a second matter in Capito itself, where review was dismissed. Similarly, review was dismissed in Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management and Salami v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center. Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto was returned to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the Capito opinion, indicating the direct impact of the Capito ruling on related cases.
Additionally, four cases were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration based on the August decision in People v. Lynch, which addressed prejudicial-sentencing-error. This action demonstrates the court’s commitment to ensuring consistent application of its rulings across the California judicial system.
Note: No images were present in the original article provided. Therefore, images could not be included in this rewritten article following the user’s instructions to reuse existing images and create alt text.
