Two depublications and three cases with two votes each to grant review at yesterday’s double conference

Five justices voted to grant review at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference, a double one, but, because no more than two did so in any one case, there were no straight grants.  Actions of note included:

• Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Governor’s emergency powers.
• The court denied review, but depublished the Second District, Division Eight, Court of Appeal opinion in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company, which affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.  Besides addressing anti-SLAPP issues (for mavens, the appellant won on prong one, but lost on prong two), the court concluded the lack of a reporter’s transcript of the motion hearing precluded a review of the superior court’s order overruling evidentiary objections.
• The court depublished the Second District, Division Two, opinion in Salazar v. See’s Candy Shops, Inc., which affirmed an order denying class certification in an action alleging an employer failed to provide required second meal breaks.  There was no petition for review, but the court granted the two depublication requests that were filed.
• Over the recorded dissenting votes of Justices Goodwin Liu and Martin Jenkins, the court denied review of the published opinion by the Fourth District, Division One, in Gomez v. Regents of the University of California.  We believe this is Justice Jenkins’s first recorded dissenting vote, although there was one earlier case in which the court did grant review and he (and Justice Joshua Groban) did not record a vote (see here).  Based on “California courts’ consistent deference to the Regents regarding the setting of wages and benefits,” the appellate court in Gomez affirmed the dismissal of a class action claiming the Regents’ time-keeping practices resulted in payment of less than the minimum wage to some of its employees.
• Justices Carol Corrigan and Groban were the dissenting recorded votes when the court denied review in Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, where the Second District, Division Six, in a published opinion, held a city was required to get the California Coastal Commission’s approval before it instituted a ban on short-term vacation rentals near the ocean.
• The court denied review in People v. Mixon, but Justices Liu and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar recorded votes to grant.  The unpublished 66-page opinion by the Second District, Division Two, affirmed three defendants’ life-without-parole sentences for murder.  The appellate court rejected Batson/Wheeler claims, concluding, “Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s express and implied finding that the prosecutor’s proffered reasons were not pretextual and that there was no race or gender discrimination” in the jury selection.  It also found meritless — among many other things — one defendant’s argument that his Miranda rights were violated.  It’s unclear what issue or issues prompted Justices Liu and Cuéllar’s unexplained dissents, an opacity that could have been easily fixed.  We’re guessing it was the Batson/Wheeler issue, because the docket says the justices voted to grant the petitions — plural — and all three defendants raised that issue on appeal, but only one defendant made a Miranda argument.  But it’s only a guess.
• The court issued an order to show cause in In re Smith, returnable before the Second District, Division Seven, to review the habeas corpus petitioner’s claim that her “trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during plea negotiations either by failing to advise her or by misadvising her as to her parole eligibility under Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (b)(3).”  (Link added.)  The statute concerns youth offender parole hearings for those convicted of certain serious crimes.  An earlier unpublished opinion by the appellate court relates that the petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years to life.
• There was one criminal case grant-and-transfer regarding an issue (or issues) that can’t be determined from the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal dockets.
• There were 15 criminal case grant-and-holds:  three more holding for a decision in People v. Lopez (see here), three more holding for People v. Strong (see here), one more holding for People v. Delgadillo (see here), two more holding for People v. Hernandez (see here), one more holding for People v. Duke (see here), two more holding for People v. Tirado (see here), one holding for People v. Arnold (see here), and two more holding for People v. Renteria (see here and here).
• The court got rid of 10 former grant-and-holds that had been waiting for the June decision in People v. Esquivel.  Half were returned to Courts of Appeal for reconsideration and review was dismissed in the other half.