Supreme Court dumps criminal case two years after granting review

Actions of note at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference included:

• Using an unusual procedure, Supreme Court further extends redistricting deadlines.
• The court dismissed review “as improvidently granted” (see here) in Molina v. Superior Court and five related grant-and-holds.  The docket indicates Justices Carol Corrigan and Goodwin Liu did not vote to dismiss.  Two years ago, the court agreed to hear Molina and it depublished the opinion of the Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal.  Last year, after the parties’ briefing was complete, the court invited the Attorney General to file an amicus brief; the Orange County District Attorney was representing the People.  The issue was whether the appellate court erred in ruling that petitioner could not seek relief by petition for writ of mandate from a concededly invalid conviction (see People v. Rodriguez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1125) under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a).  It’s unclear what was improvident about the grant of review.
• The court granted review in Williams v. National Western Life Insurance Company and transferred the case back to the Third District with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider in light of one page of a 2005 Supreme Court opinion and several sections of the Insurance Code.  The grant-and-transfer order is unusual because the appellate court had already issued an opinion, and a published one at that.  The opinion reversed an award, including $2,500,000 in punitive damages, against an insurance company regarding the sale of the company’s annuity, because, the appellate court concluded, the person who sold the annuity was not the company’s agent.  The order to vacate the decision depublishes the Third District’s opinion.  (See here.)
• The court denied review in Linovitz Capo Shores LLC v. California Coastal Commission, but Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar recorded a vote to grant.  The Fourth District, Division Three, published opinion expressly disagreed with the First District, Division Five, decision in Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812, Division Three concluding that a statute requiring an agency to give “public notice” of a hearing on a permit application need not contain language stating that the permit will be deemed approved if the agency does not act within 60 days.
• The purge of People v. Lewis grant-and-holds has begun.  The court sent a dozen of them back to the Courts of Appeal with directions to reconsider in light of the July decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.  Only 315 to go, by our count.  (See here.)  Apparently, the court thinks it unnecessary to first see whether the Governor will sign a bill that would codify in part and clarify in part the Lewis opinion.  (See here.)
• There were 11 criminal case grant-and-holds:  five 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. Henderson (see here), one more holding for People v. Renteria (see here and here), and one more holding for People v. Hernandez (see here).