There were no straight grants at the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, atypically on a Tuesday and with only six justices participating because of Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar’s retirement last month.  But new legislation regarding criminal liability for murder continued to impact the court’s docket.  Conference actions of note included:

  • Supreme Court allows Governor to commute third-strike sentence.
  • After granting review and full briefing, the court transferred People v. Duke back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Senate Bill 775.  The legislation, which was signed by Governor Gavin Newson last month, refines Senate Bill 1437.  (See here.)  SB 1437 was enacted in 2018 to limit criminal liability for felony murder or murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.  Two weeks ago, the court made a similar transfer order in the fully briefed People v. Lopez case.  (See here.)
  • The Courts of Appeal will also be evaluating SB 775 in three other cases, where the Supreme Court yesterday granted review, vacated the appellate court decisions, and transferred for reconsideration in light of the new legislation.  There have been earlier, similar grant-and-transfer orders.  (See here,  here, here, and here.)
  • The court denied review in People v. Omega, but did so “without prejudice to defendant filing a [resentencing] petition in the superior court pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95” (link added), a statute added by SB 1437 (see above).  That wasn’t enough for Justices Goodwin Liu and Joshua Groban, who recorded votes to grant review.  The Third District’s unpublished opinion affirming a first degree murder conviction came after the Supreme Court had vacated the appellate court’s earlier affirmance in the case and remanded for reconsideration in light of People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830 (see here).  Like the Supreme Court’s order, the Third District’s opinion noted the availability of a resentencing petition under section 1170.95.
  • The court granted and transferred in another case to require Court of Appeal reconsideration in light of recent legislation, this time year-old Assembly Bill 1869, which makes “unenforceable and uncollectible” various court-imposed costs.
  • The court granted-and-held in Rodas v. Department of Transportation.  The case is back-burnered for Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in which the issue was limited to:  “Can a public entity be held liable under Government Code section 830.8 for failure to warn of an allegedly dangerous design of public property that is subject to Government Code section 830.6 design immunity?”  (See here and here.)  In Rodas, the Fourth District, Division One, unpublished opinion reversed a $24,188,847 personal injury judgment against Caltrans, in the process concluding there is no liability for a failure to warn of a hidden trap when the trap is part of a dangerous condition subject to design immunity.  The Supreme Court had transferred the appeal from the Sixth District in February after briefing had been complete for over five months.  (Related:  here and here.)
  • In another governmental immunity case, the court denied review in City of Chico v. Superior Court, where the Third District, in a published opinion, ordered a defense summary judgment be entered in a jogger’s lawsuit for injuries caused by a falling tree branch in a city park.  The appellate court concluded the city was immune under Government Code section 831.2, which precludes a public entity’s liability “for an injury caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property.”
  • After the Third District’s summary denial of a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court in In re Stevens granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal to decide the merits of whether “the trial court improperly considered the pretrial services report and other information before the court at the bail review hearing held on April 13, 2021, and [whether] the information constituted insufficient evidence to deny bail.  (See In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 462-464 [see here].)”
  • There were three criminal case grant-and-holds:  one more holding for a decision in People v. Strong (see here); one more holding for People v. Tirado (see here), which was argued three weeks ago; and one more holding for People v. Padilla and People v. Federico (see here).
  • The court dismissed review in four more cases that had been grant-and-holds waiting for the July decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.  By our count, there are 211 Lewis grant-and-holds still pending.