Supreme Court minutes — Leeper review grant and citation status

Full Retained Text

Text from the retained reading copy, without editorial rewriting. Page markers, extraction artifacts and publisher navigation may remain. Use the retained original to inspect its typography and pagination.

[PDF page 1]
 
 
 
 
 
 
470 
SUPREME COURT MINUTES 
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2025 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
S289305 
B339670 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
LEEPER (CHRISTINA) v.  
 
  
SHIPT, INC. 
 
Review granted on the court’s own motion 
 
 
Review is ordered on the court’s own motion. 
 
The issues to be briefed and argued are limited to the following:  1.)  Does every Private 
Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) action necessarily include both 
individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically 
alleges individual claims?  2.)  Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA 
action? 
 
For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, Christina Leeper is deemed the petitioner in this 
court.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a)(6).) 
 
Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 107 
Cal.App.5th 1001, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose 
of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to 
exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, to 
choose between sides of any such conflict.  (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under 
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with 
an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules 
of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.) 
 
The requests for an order directing depublication of the opinion in the above-entitled appeal are 
denied. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289376 
  
PITT (SUSAN A.) v.  
 
  
METROPOLITAN TOWER  
 
  
LIFE INSURANCE  
 
  
COMPANY 
 
Request for certification granted 
 
 
The request, made pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a 
question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit, is granted. 
 
For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, appellant Susan Pitt is deemed the petitioner in 
this court.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a)(6).) 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 



[PDF page 2]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
471 
 
 
 
S289196 
G063652 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. MIRANDA (JOSE  
 
  
LUIS) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289269 
E083061 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. MILLER  
 
  
(HAROLD WILLIAM) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289357 
G063649 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. McBATH  
 
  
(JOSEPH RAY) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289428 
G063633 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. EWING (GRANT  
 
  
CHAMPION) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 



[PDF page 3]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
472 
 
 
 
S289455 
E083170 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. HOLLOWAY  
 
  
(ROY SYLVESTER) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289541 
G063559 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. BRICENO  
 
  
(ALBERT FRANCISCO) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289549 
E082945 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. MARBLEY, JR.,  
 
  
(MARION RICK) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289560 
E082960 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. ARCHULETA  
 
  
(RAYMOND ANTHONY) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 



[PDF page 4]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
473 
 
 
 
S289566 
H051441 Sixth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. DRUMMER  
 
  
(MARCELLOUS) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Emanuel, S280551 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289578 
E082098 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. AGUIRRE, JR.,  
 
  
(JOHNNY RAY) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Lopez, S287814 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289611 
G063662 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. FINKS (BRENDAN  
 
  
DASHON) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289644 
B331830 Second Appellate District, Div. 5 
PEOPLE v. YOUNG  
 
  
(DESTINY) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Emanuel, S280551 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 



[PDF page 5]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
474 
 
 
 
S289702 
A168297 First Appellate District, Div. 1 
COLON-PEREZ (JENNY- 
 
  
ASHLEY) v. SECURITY  
 
  
INDUSTRY SPECIALISTS,  
 
  
INC. 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in Hohenshelt v. S.C. (Golden State Foods Corp.), S284498 (see 
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of 
additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further 
order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289712 
C100904 Third Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. SCHANUTH  
 
  
(ARNOLD WAYNE) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Wiley, S283326 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289740 
G063644 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ  
 
  
(GILBERT) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289764 
G063658 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. FELIX (FRANK  
 
  
ALFRED) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 



[PDF page 6]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
475 
 
 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289807 
G063651 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. GENTRY  
 
  
(EDWARD RAY) 
 
Petition for review granted; briefing deferred 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration 
and disposition of a related issue in People v. Rhodius, S283169 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 
8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court.  Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to 
California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S285522 
  
JOHNSON (LANDON RYAN)  
 
  
ON H.C. 
 
Order to show cause issued, returnable in Superior Court 
 
 
The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is ordered to show cause, 
returnable before the Riverside County Superior Court, why the petition does not satisfy the 
statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 
1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who alleges 
facts constituting a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  The return must be served and filed on or 
before May 16, 2025. 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S288952 
H052652 Sixth Appellate District 
PAKNAD (MICHELLE) v. S.C.  
 
  
(INTUITIVE SURGICAL,  
 
  
INC.) 
 
Petition for review granted; transferred to Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, with 
directions to issue an order to show cause 
 
 
The motion to augment the record is denied, without prejudice to petitioner raising it before the 
Court of Appeal. 
 
The petition for review is granted.  The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Sixth 
Appellate District, with directions to vacate its order denying mandate and to issue an order 
directing respondent superior court to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not 
be granted.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).)  The response to the order to show cause should 
address the application of People v. Superior Court (Jones) (2021) 12 Cal.5th 348, 361-64 
(“Jones”) and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 126, 
128, (as cited in Jones at p. 364) to this matter. 
 
Pending further order of the Court of Appeal, all proceedings in Santa Clara County Superior 
Court, Case No. 19CV350641, are hereby stayed. 



[PDF page 7]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
476 
 
 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289750 
C101181 Third Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. CARTER  
 
  
(DEWAYNE NORMAN) 
 
Petition for review granted; transferred to Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District 
 
 
The petition for review is granted.  The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Third 
Appellate District, with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of 
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d)). 
 
Votes:  Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. 
 
 
 
S289024 
  
PENRY (RICHARD) ON  
 
  
CLEMENCY 
 
Letter sent to Governor with the recommendation required by article V, section 8 of the California 
Constitution for the Governor to grant clemency 
 
 
April 16, 2025 
 
 
The Honorable Gavin Newsom 
 
Governor, State of California 
 
State Capitol Building 
 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
 
 
Re:  Richard Penry 
 
Legal Affairs File No.:  GO No. 10-23-00682 
 
Case Number:  S289024 
 
Executive Clemency Number:  1256 
 
 
Dear Governor Newsom: 
 
 
On the application of Richard Penry for pardon, the court, with at least 4 judges concurring, 
hereby makes the recommendation required by Article V, section 8 of the California Constitution 
for the Governor to grant a pardon. 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
Patricia Guerrero 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 



[PDF page 8]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
477 
 
 
 
S279367 
  
PORCHE (JOSEPH  
 
  
LAWRENCE), IN RE 
 
The requests for judicial notice are granted. 
 
The applications to seal the records in Case No. S279367 and suppress the case name are granted.  
(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d), 8.46(b).)  In ordering the sealing, this court makes the 
findings required by California Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d) and 8.46(d)(6).  The clerk of this 
court is directed to seal the records in this case.  Further, pursuant to California Rules of Court, 
rule 8.90, the clerk of this court is also directed to redact the case name on the docket to reflect 
petitioner’s initials:  In re P., (J.L.) on Discipline. 
 
The motion to dismiss is denied. 
 
The petition for review is denied. 
 
 
 
S288964 
B319906 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
CALLEJA (DAISY) v.  
 
  
UDEWITZ (JONATHAN) 
 
The request for judicial notice is granted. 
 
The motion for leave to cite unpublished Court of Appeal decision is denied. 
 
The petition for review is denied. 
 
The requests for an order directing publication of the opinion are denied. 
 
 
 
S289050 
D083677 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
BEALER (ANTWOINE) v.  
 
  
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289058 
B316745 Second Appellate District, Div. 2 
ALLIANCE MARC & EVA  
 
  
STERN MATH & SCIENCE  
 
  
HIGH SCHOOL v. PUBLIC  
 
  
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS  
 
  
BOARD (UNITED TEACHERS  
 
  
LOS ANGELES) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289059 
H052687 Sixth Appellate District 
ROYAL COACH TOURS,  
 
  
INC. v. MILETAK (NICK) 
 
The petition for review is denied. 
 
The petition for writ of supersedeas is denied. 
 
 
 
S289061 
E082173 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
IN RE L.L. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 



[PDF page 9]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
478 
 
 
 
S289129 
E081911 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
RAMIREZ (DAISY) v.  
 
  
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289130 
A171174 First Appellate District, Div. 4 
NAM (UN HUI FAITH) v. S.C.  
 
  
(MEDICAL BOARD OF  
 
  
CALIFORNIA) 
 
Petitioner’s motion to file the unredacted petition for review under seal, filed on February 5, 2025, 
is denied.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550, 2.551, and 8.46.)  Petitioner must notify the 
Clerk of this court within 10 days if the unredacted petition for review (lodged conditionally 
under seal on February 3, 2025) should be filed unsealed as part of the public record.  (See Cal. 
Rules of Court, rule 8.46(d)(7).) 
 
The petition for review and application for stay are denied. 
 
 
 
S289150 
B331076 Second Appellate District, Div. 3 
CARVER (TERRY) v.  
 
  
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF  
 
  
AMERICA, INC. 
 
Petition for review & depublication request(s) denied 
 
 
 
S289167 
A172259 First Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (TED  
 
  
BRANDON) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289173 
  
WELCH-WOODS, GLADYS  
 
  
GELENE - DECEDENT 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289175 
E082349 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. BASS (QUINN  
 
  
SHINDA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
Liu and Evans, JJ., are of the opinion the petition should be granted. 
 
 
 
S289185 
H051608 Sixth Appellate District 
IN RE S.B. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 10]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
479 
 
 
 
S289188 
H051701 Sixth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. TAPIA  
 
  
(HERIBERTO SANDOVAL) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289191 
  
SINGH (RAGHVENDRA) v.  
 
  
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD  
 
  
APPELLATE DISTRICT  
 
  
(CITY OF ELK GROVE) 
 
The petition for writ of mandate is denied. 
 
 
 
S289200 
B330404 Second Appellate District, Div. 5 
HERNANDEZ (FERNANDO)  
 
  
v. ALVAREZ (GEORGE) 
 
Petition for review & publication request(s) denied 
 
 
 
S289209 
  
YACOUB (ANNETTA) v.  
 
  
DAWOUD (FREDDY) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289242 
D082588 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
GREENER (JACK) v. M.  
 
  
PHELPS, INC. 
 
Petition for review & depublication request(s) denied 
 
 
 
S289245 
  
HAMILTON (GEORGE) v.  
 
  
DEPARTMENT OF  
 
  
GENERAL SERVICES,  
 
  
GOVERNMENT CLAIMS  
 
  
PROGRAM (OGLE) 
 
The petition for writ of mandate is denied. 
 
 
 
S289253 
A172332 First Appellate District, Div. 2 
ALEXANDER (OLGA  
 
  
CRISTINA) v. S.C.  
 
  
(ALEXANDER) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 11]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
480 
 
 
 
S289285 
A167637 First Appellate District, Div. 4 
REESE (JEANIE) v. SELECT  
 
  
PORTFOLIO SERVICING,  
 
  
INC. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289399 
B334048 Second Appellate District, Div. 2 
SATTLEY (JOSH) v. CITY OF  
 
  
BEVERLY HILLS 
 
Petition for review & publication request(s) denied 
 
 
 
S289410 
D083151 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. GATES  
 
  
(WILLIAM CHARLES) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289434 
G065046 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
D’ALESSANDRO  
 
  
(SALVATORE) v. S.C.  
 
  
(PASSALAQUA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289442 
F084644 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. GUTIERREZ  
 
  
(DANIEL) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289450 
D083304 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. LOBATO (JESSE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289453 
E082736 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. TOWNER  
 
  
(WILLIAM RAY SPIVEY) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289458 
D083071 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. LOPEZ (CARLOS  
 
  
ALBERTO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 12]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
481 
 
 
 
S289472 
B337799 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
TENG (MI PING) v.  
 
  
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,  
 
  
N.A. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289491 
G062618 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. HOLMES  
 
  
(LESHANE JEROME) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289494 
C101277 Third Appellate District 
TARPIN (SHARIF) v.  
 
  
CONERLY (CARINA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289506 
B330784 Second Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. CAMPOS  
 
  
(DANNY) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289507 
C100472 Third Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. LARSON  
 
  
(ROBERT DEAN) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289510 
C099650 Third Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. CAMPAZ, JR.,  
 
  
(CARLOS TOMAS) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289521 
B343428 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
LAPONTE (JOHN) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289536 
  
ALEGRIA (JUAN) v.  
 
  
WORKERS’  
 
  
COMPENSATION APPEALS  
 
  
BOARD (PAK’S CABINETS) 
 
The petition for writ of mandate is denied. 
 
Corrigan, J., was recused and did not participate. 
 
 



[PDF page 13]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
482 
 
 
 
S289550 
F087698 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. MORFIN  
 
  
(ARTURO) 
 
The petition for review is denied without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be 
entitled after this court decides People v. Kopp, S257844. 
 
 
 
S289551 
B332863 Second Appellate District, Div. 4 
PEOPLE v. OM (MORRIS) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289554 
B330083 Second Appellate District, Div. 8 
PEOPLE v. CRUZ (RICARDO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289555 
B335887 Second Appellate District, Div. 6 
PEOPLE v. MORALES  
 
  
(VIDAL VARGAS) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289556 
B332913 Second Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. VILLALOBOS  
 
  
(MARCOS) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289558 
D082372 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
VILLALVA (MARK) v.  
 
  
BOMBARDIER MASS  
 
  
TRANSIT CORPORATION 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289565 B330995/B333974 Second Appellate District, Div. 3 PEOPLE v. HAMILTON  
 
 
  
 
(CHRISTOPHER KENJI) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289568 
E081487 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. MACIAS  
 
  
(MARTIN ROJAS) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289571 
F087464 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. TRUJILLO (JOSE  
 
  
ANDRES PINEDA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 



[PDF page 14]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
483 
 
 
 
S289574 
C098009 Third Appellate District 
ASSOCIATED GENERAL  
 
  
CONTRACTORS OF  
 
  
CALIFORNIA, INC. v.  
 
  
DEPARTMENT OF  
 
  
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289575 
  
HAYES (LAWRENCE P.) v.  
 
  
S.C. (PEOPLE) 
 
Petition for writ of review & application for stay denied 
 
 
 
S289576 
D084306 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ  
 
  
(JOSE FELICIANO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289577 
E081827 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. ADAMS  
 
  
(DENETRIC LEROY) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289580 
F086385 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. LARA (PATRICK  
 
  
ABENICIO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289582 
B334415 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. NELSON (SERGIO  
 
  
DUJUAN) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
Liu and Evans, JJ., are of the opinion the petition should be granted. 
 
 
 
S289588 
G064123 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. CHAROWHAS  
 
  
(MARK LEE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289590 
F084690 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. CRUZ (ALVARO  
 
  
ELVIRA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 15]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
484 
 
 
 
S289594 
B344013 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
ORTEGA (STEVEN C.) v. S.C.  
 
  
(PEOPLE) 
 
The request for judicial notice is granted. 
 
The petition for review is denied. 
 
 
 
S289603 
B333270 Second Appellate District, Div. 5 
PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ  
 
  
(ARTURO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289604 
B331767 Second Appellate District, Div. 8 
PEOPLE v. QUIROZ  
 
  
(ALEJANDRO CESAR) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289606 
B333813 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. CARTER (ERIC  
 
  
TYRONE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289607 
  
PERRY (MICHAEL MOSHE)  
 
  
v. S.C. 
 
Petition for review & application for stay denied 
 
 
 
S289608 
B332542 Second Appellate District, Div. 6 
PEOPLE v. KNESS (ALLEN  
 
  
REED) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289612 
B337230 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. GREENWOOD  
 
  
(LEWIS) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289613 
H046931 Sixth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. STEWARD  
 
  
(AARON LAMONT) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289635 
B328655 Second Appellate District, Div. 8 
PEOPLE v. LIMON (GLORIA  
 
  
FELIZ MARIE) 
 
Petitions for review denied 



[PDF page 16]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
485 
 
 
 
S289636 
B336664 Second Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. McDERMOTT  
 
  
(ROHAN) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289637 
E083680 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. LOPEZ (STEVEN) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289638 
G064319 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. TOWNES (BENNY  
 
  
EUGENE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289641 
  
NISSANOFF (JONATHAN) v.  
 
  
APPELLATE DIVISION  
 
  
(UNITED HEALTHCARE  
 
  
INSURANCE COMPANY) 
 
Petition for writ of certiorari denied 
 
 
 
S289643 
H050678 Sixth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. HARO (JACOB) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289647 
F086444 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. RAMOS  
 
  
(GERARDO CEJA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289654 
H052836 Sixth Appellate District 
HERNANDEZ SANTOS  
 
  
(RENE AARON) v. S.C.  
 
  
(PEOPLE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289656 
G063266 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. MENDOZA  
 
  
(ELPIDIO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289657 
H051842 Sixth Appellate District 
IN RE A.S. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 



[PDF page 17]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
486 
 
 
 
S289658 
F089329 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. S.C. (CARROLL) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289659 
B331219 Second Appellate District, Div. 4 
PICH (HEATHER) v.  
 
  
LASERAWAY, LLC 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289662 
H052837 Sixth Appellate District 
HERNANDEZ (RENE  
 
  
TRIGUEROS) v. S.C.  
 
  
(PEOPLE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289670 
D085575 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
LAWRIE (MATTHEW) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289671 
F086506 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. PACHECO  
 
  
(OCTAVIO MEJIA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289673 
G063302 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ  
 
  
(JERRY) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289675 
G065115 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
SANTIAGO (CARLOS JUAN)  
 
  
v. S.C. (PEOPLE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289677 
A172261 First Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. JIMENEZ  
 
  
(CHRISTIAN ISAIAH) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289678 
B324271 Second Appellate District, Div. 6 
PEOPLE v. PINTO (ADRIAN  
 
  
OSWALD) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 



[PDF page 18]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
487 
 
 
 
S289679 
F086981 Fifth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ (HUGO  
 
  
NOE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289682 
E082656 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. MINJAREZ  
 
  
(PAUL) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289683 
B331308 Second Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. SPENCER  
 
  
(VICTOR) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289686 
C102859 Third Appellate District 
NEELY (WILLIAM S.) v. S.C.  
 
  
(PEOPLE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289693 
A171633 First Appellate District, Div. 3 
KAAR (SYLVESTER S.) v.  
 
  
SELECT PORTFOLIO  
 
  
SERVICING, INC. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289704 
B332987 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. DENNIS  
 
  
(NATHANIEL DONIEL) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289713 
B332949 Second Appellate District, Div. 5 
PEOPLE v. ARRIAGA  
 
  
(MARIO FRANKIE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289714 
E082651 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. HURLEY (TAJH  
 
  
ABRAHAM) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 19]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
488 
 
 
 
S289716 
D085577 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 1 
LICHTMAN (VALERIE) v.  
 
  
S.C. (THE CITY OF  
 
  
CARLSBAD) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289717 
C099916 Third Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. TRAYLOR  
 
  
(MELVIN) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289719 
C098631 Third Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. CORNEJO  
 
  
(OTONIEL) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
Liu, J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted. 
 
 
 
S289720 
A172283 First Appellate District, Div. 3 
DOORDASH, INC. v. S.C.  
 
  
(PEOPLE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289723 
B334072 Second Appellate District, Div. 5 
PEOPLE v. ORTEGA  
 
  
(CESAR) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289725 
B335444 Second Appellate District, Div. 7 
PEOPLE v. DEBATO  
 
  
(HANEZE L.) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289726 
B333436 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. PETTAWAY  
 
  
(UNDRAE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289728 
A167186 First Appellate District, Div. 4 
PEOPLE v. ROSBERG  
 
  
(AARON) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 20]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
489 
 
 
 
S289730 
A169158 First Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. EVENSEN  
 
  
(RICHARD PATRICK) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289731 
A168490 First Appellate District, Div. 5 
E. (ELLEN) v. C. (PAUL) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289733 
A168626 First Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. CARRILLO  
 
  
(FERNANDO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289743 
B335449 Second Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. PASA (LEFULEFU  
 
  
KAIO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289745 
B336084 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
IN RE C.L. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289754 
C099468 Third Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. GRAYSON  
 
  
(MICHAEL ANTHONY) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289755 
A168929 First Appellate District, Div. 5 
PEOPLE v. REYNOSO- 
 
  
LOZANO (SERGIO) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289772 
B328409 Second Appellate District, Div. 8 
SCHILL (GREGORY P.) v.  
 
  
PERERA (LIONEL  
 
  
MAHINDA) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289776 
C103158 Third Appellate District 
COLE (JEFFREY MARK) v.  
 
  
S.C. (PEOPLE) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 21]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
490 
 
 
 
S289779 
A170300 First Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. CHARLES  
 
  
(FRANK) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289783 
G063160 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. JORDAN  
 
  
(RONALD) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289784 
F089330 Fifth Appellate District 
JESKE (MARCUS ALLEN)  
 
  
ON H.C. 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289803 
A169380 First Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. ACOSTA  
 
  
(ALBERTO VINCENT) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289804 
E082657 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 
PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ  
 
  
(RICHARD) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 
 
S289809 
A172611 First Appellate District, Div. 1 
WINFREY (DANGELO) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
The petition for review is denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be 
entitled after this court decides In re Kowalczyk, S277910. 
 
 
 
S289810 
G063475 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
PEOPLE v. IBARRA  
 
  
(FERNANDO RIOS) 
 
The petition for review is denied without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be 
entitled after this court decides People v. Kopp, S257844. 
 
 
 
S289828 
H052457 Sixth Appellate District 
LIN (SHIXI) v. S.C.  
 
  
(NORTHEAST SECURITIES  
 
  
CO., LTD.) 
 
Petition for review denied 
 
 



[PDF page 22]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
491 
 
 
 
S289953 
H052994 Sixth Appellate District 
QUE (WENBIN) v. S.C.  
 
  
(NORTHEAST SECURITIES  
 
  
CO., LTD.) 
 
Petition for review & application for stay denied 
 
 
 
S290058 
  
MITCHELL (FREDERICK) v.  
 
  
CHAWLA (MANJARI) 
 
The petition for writ of mandate and application for stay are denied. 
 
 
 
S290088 
  
GOLDSTEIN (FRED) v. S.C.  
 
  
(DRISKELL) 
 
The petition for writ of mandate and application for stay are denied. 
 
 
 
S290110 E079240/E082476 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 DE LIGHT (LAURA & JOHN),  
 
 
  
 
MARRIAGE OF 
 
Petition for review & application for stay denied 
 
 
 
S290163 
A170614 First Appellate District, Div. 4 
MALIK (SHAZIA) v.  
 
  
REGENTS OF THE  
 
  
UNIVERSITY OF  
 
  
CALIFORNIA 
 
Petition for review & application for stay denied 
 
 
 
S280953 
  
MANJIKIAN (ZAREH) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745).  
In this respect, petitioner alleges that prosecutor’s closing statements were “an implicit appeal to 
biases, stereotypes, and coded language playing on a trope that Armenians were not peaceful and 
non-violent like white people from Western Europe.” 
 
The petition fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial Justice 
Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  As to petitioner’s claims based on allegedly racially 
discriminatory language, the allegations of the petition do not support the conclusion that the 
language cited by petitioner is racially discriminatory or that it reflects racial bias or animus.  (Id., 
§ 745, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 
 
Liu, J., is of the opinion an order to show cause should be issued. 
 
 



[PDF page 23]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
492 
 
 
 
S281275 
  
JOLIVETTE (PAUL  
 
  
PATRICK) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745) 
and requests the appointment of counsel.  In this respect, petitioner claims he was charged and 
sentenced in a more severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, ethnicities, 
and national origins in Solano County. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an 
indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” at this time.  (Pen. 
Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petition fails to allege particularized facts that support a claim that 
petitioner was charged, convicted, or sentenced in a more severe manner than similarly situated 
individuals of other races, ethnicities, or national origins.  (Id., § 745, subd. (a)(3)-(4).)  Nor does 
petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary evidence concerning these claims. 
 
Petitioner also seeks disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act to obtain evidence 
supporting his claims.  (See Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e).)  We granted review in 
In re Montgomery, S287339 (Montgomery) to consider issues related to discovery requests under 
the Racial Justice Act.  Because our resolution of the issues presented in Montgomery may affect 
the availability of discovery under the Racial Justice Act, which may in turn affect the ability of a 
petitioner to plead claims under that statute, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and discovery 
request are denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this 
court decides Montgomery.  (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [“A petition raising a claim [under 
the Racial Justice Act] on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence 
that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be 
deemed a successive or abusive petition”].) 
 
 
 
S284839 
  
PHILLIPS, JR.,  (ERIC  
 
  
JEROME) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745) 
and requests the appointment of counsel.  In this respect, petitioner claims that because he is 
African American, the superior court imposed unaffordable bail and denied him his rights to a 
speedy trial and self-representation, his trial counsel and court-appointed mental health experts 
uttered “racial threats,” and jail officials harmed him.  He further contends the Riverside County 
District Attorney has engaged in a practice of systematically charging African American 
defendants more severely than similarly situated defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national 
origins. 



[PDF page 24]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
493 
 
 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, §§ 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for 
an indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” at this time.  (Pen. 
Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petitioner fails to allege particularized facts that support his claims 
based on alleged exhibitions of racial bias or that establish petitioner was charged in a more 
severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, ethnicities, or national origins.  
(Id., § 745, subds. (a)(1)-(3).)  Nor does petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary 
evidence concerning these claims. 
 
Petitioner also seeks disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act to obtain evidence 
supporting his claims.  (See Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e).)  We granted review in 
In re Montgomery, S287339 (Montgomery) to consider issues related to discovery requests under 
the Racial Justice Act.  Because our resolution of the issues presented in Montgomery may affect 
the availability of discovery under the Racial Justice Act, which may in turn affect the ability of a 
petitioner to plead claims under that statute, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and discovery 
request are denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this 
court decides Montgomery.  (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [“A petition raising a claim [under 
the Racial Justice Act] on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence 
that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be 
deemed a successive or abusive petition”].) 
 
 
 
S285127 
  
PHILLIPS, JR., (ERIC  
 
  
JEROME) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745) 
and requests the appointment of counsel.  In this respect, petitioner claims that because he is 
African American, the superior court imposed unaffordable bail and denied him his right to self- 
representation, his trial counsel uttered “racial threats,” and court-appoint mental health experts 
made racially biased statements and physically harmed him.  He further contends the Riverside 
County District Attorney has engaged in a practice of systematically charging African American 
defendants more severely than similarly situated defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national 
origins. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, §§ 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for 
an indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” at this time.  (Pen. 
Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petitioner fails to allege particularized facts that support his claims 
based on alleged exhibitions of racial bias or that establish petitioner was charged in a more 
severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, ethnicities, or national origins.  



[PDF page 25]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
494 
 
 
(Id., § 745, subds. (a)(1)-(3).)  Nor does petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary 
evidence concerning these claims. 
 
Petitioner also seeks disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act to obtain evidence 
supporting his claims.  (See Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e).)  We granted review in 
In re Montgomery, S287339 (Montgomery) to consider issues related to discovery requests under 
the Racial Justice Act.  Because our resolution of the issues presented in Montgomery may affect 
the availability of discovery under the Racial Justice Act, which may in turn affect the ability of a 
petitioner to plead claims under that statute, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and discovery 
request are denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this 
court decides Montgomery.  (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [“A petition raising a claim [under 
the Racial Justice Act] on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence 
that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be 
deemed a successive or abusive petition”].) 
 
 
 
S285216 
  
SUAREZ (JOSE ALFREDO)  
 
  
ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 and seeks the 
appointment of counsel.  (Pen. Code, § 745.)  In this respect, petitioner alleges that trial counsel's 
use of non-verbal cues exhibited bias towards him because of his race. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an 
indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” under the Racial 
Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petitioner fails to allege particularized facts that 
support his claims based on alleged exhibitions of racial bias.  (Id., § 745, subd. (a)(1), (2); cf. In 
re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege sufficient 
facts with particularity].)  Nor does petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary evidence 
concerning these claims.  (Cf. People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of 
habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence].) 
 
The request for counsel is denied.  The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 
 
 
 
S285783 
  
WILLIAMS (CHARMAR) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  Individual claims are denied, as applicable.  (See 
People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include 
copies of reasonably available documentary evidence]; In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a 
petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege sufficient facts with particularity].) 
 
 



[PDF page 26]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
495 
 
 
 
S285872 
  
PHILLIPS, JR., (ERIC  
 
  
JEROME) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745) 
and requests the appointment of counsel.  In this respect, petitioner claims that because he is 
African American the superior court imposed unaffordable bail and has not done so for similarly 
situated inmates of other races, ethnicities, or national origins.  He further contends the Riverside 
County District Attorney has engaged in a practice of systematically charging African American 
defendants more severely than similarly situated defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national 
origins.  Finally, he contends the Riverside County Jail maintains inhumane living conditions for 
African American and Latino inmates. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, §§ 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for 
an indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” at this time.  (Pen. 
Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petition fails to allege particularized facts that support his claims 
based on alleged exhibitions of racial bias or that establish petitioner was charged in a more 
severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, ethnicities, or national origins.  
(Id., § 745, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3).)  Nor does petitioner describe or attach relevant supporting 
documentary evidence concerning these claims. 
 
Petitioner also seeks disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act to obtain evidence 
supporting his claims.  (See Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e).)  We granted review in 
In re Montgomery, S287339 (Montgomery) to consider issues related to discovery requests under 
the Racial Justice Act.  Because our resolution of the issues presented in Montgomery may affect 
the availability of discovery under the Racial Justice Act, which may in turn affect the ability of a 
petitioner to plead claims under that statute, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and discovery 
request are denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this 
court decides Montgomery.  (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [“A petition raising a claim [under 
the Racial Justice Act] on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence 
that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be 
deemed a successive or abusive petition”].) 
 
 
 
S286422 
  
BROWN (DURRELL  
 
  
ANTOINE) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 



[PDF page 27]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
496 
 
 
 
S287337 
  
HOUT (BORAN) ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends that he is 
entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020.  (Pen. Code, § 745.)  In this respect, 
petitioner alleges that the Racial Justice Act sought to eliminate racial bias from the state’s 
criminal justice system and that he should be granted appointment of counsel. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an 
indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” under the Racial 
Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petitioner fails to allege particularized facts that 
support his claims based on alleged exhibitions of racial bias.  (Id., § 745, subd. (a)(1), (2); cf. In 
re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege sufficient 
facts with particularity].)  Nor does petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary evidence 
concerning these claims.  (Cf. People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of 
habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence].) 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 
 
 
 
S287426 
  
SMITH (PATRICK  
 
  
MICHAEL) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends that he is 
entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020.  (Pen. Code, § 745.)  In this respect, 
petitioner alleges that he received a longer or more severe sentence compared to similarly situated 
individuals convicted of the same offense and longer or more severe sentences were more 
frequently imposed for the same offense on defendant who share petitioner’s race, ethnicity, or 
national origin than on others in Monterey County. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an 
indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” under the Racial 
Justice Act at this time.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petition fails to allege particularized 
facts or provide any supporting evidence that support a claim that petitioner was sentenced in a 
more severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, ethnicities, or national 
origins.  (Id., § 745, subd. (a)(4).)  Nor does petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary 
evidence concerning these claims. 
 
Petitioner also seeks disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act to obtain evidence 
supporting his claims.  (See Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e).)  We granted review in 
In re Montgomery, S287339 (Montgomery) to consider issues related to discovery requests under 
the Racial Justice Act.  Because our resolution of the issues presented in Montgomery may affect 
the availability of discovery under the Racial Justice Act, which may in turn affect the ability of a 



[PDF page 28]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
497 
 
 
petitioner to plead claims under that statute, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and discovery 
request are denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this 
court decides Montgomery.  (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [“A petition raising a claim [under 
the Racial Justice Act] on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence 
that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be 
deemed a successive or abusive petition”].) 
 
 
 
S287485 
  
PAYNE (RANDY LYNN) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
Groban and Evans, JJ., are of the opinion an order to show caused should be issued. 
 
 
 
S287572 
  
THOMAS (RAYSHON) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745).  
In this respect, petitioner claims he was racially profiled by the prosecutor, charged on the basis of 
race, and denied bail and release on his own recognizance by the trial judge because of racial bias.  
He further contends racial animus led to the denial of his request for transcripts and to an 
improper redaction of those transcripts. 
 
The petition fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial Justice 
Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petition fails to allege particularized facts that 
adequately describe any alleged actions by the prosecutor or the trial judge or how those entities 
specifically exhibited racial bias or animus in the handling of petitioner’s arrest or bail hearing.  
(Pen. Code, § 745, subd. (a)(1)-(4); cf. In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ 
of habeas corpus must allege sufficient facts with particularity].)  Nor does petitioner describe or 
attach supporting documentary evidence concerning racial bias or animus, such as police reports, 
the charging documents, or transcripts of pretrial or trial proceedings.  (Cf. People v. Duvall 
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably 
available documentary evidence].) 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 
 
 
 
S287573 
  
GAONA GARDNER (JUAN  
 
  
JESUS) ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  (See People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 
[a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available documentary 
evidence]; In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege 
sufficient facts with particularity].) 
 
 



[PDF page 29]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
498 
 
 
 
S287784 
  
SARMIENTO (JOSE ELIAS)  
 
  
ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  Individual claims are denied, as applicable.  (See 
People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include 
copies of reasonably available documentary evidence]; In re Lessard (1965) 62 Cal.2d 497, 503 
[courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that raise Fourth Amendment violations].) 
 
 
 
S287858 
  
WASHINGTON (RODERICK  
 
  
NATHANIEL) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
 
S287860 
  
RIVERA (MICHAEL  
 
  
ALEXANDER) ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  (See In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 
[courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that are untimely]; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 
750, 767-769 [courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that are successive].)  Individual 
claims are denied, as applicable.  (See In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 193, 200 [courts will not 
entertain habeas corpus claims that could have been, but were not, raised at trial]; In re Lessard 
(1965) 62 Cal.2d 497, 503 [courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that raise Fourth 
Amendment violations]; In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 [courts will not entertain habeas 
corpus claims that could have been, but were not, raised on appeal]; In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 
300, 304 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege sufficient facts with particularity].) 
 
 
 
S287875 
  
SMITH (PATRICK  
 
  
MICHAEL) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends that he is 
entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020.  (Pen. Code, § 745.)  In this respect, 
petitioner alleges that he was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of 
other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly 
situated, that prosecutors in Monterey County more frequently sought or obtained convictions for 
more serious offenses against people who share his race, ethnicity, or national origin and that he 
received a longer or more severe sentence compared to similarly situated individuals convicted of 
the same offense and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same 
offense on defendant who share petitioner's race, ethnicity, or national origin than on others in 
Monterey County. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an 
indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 



[PDF page 30]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
499 
 
 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” under the Racial 
Justice Act at this time.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petition fails to allege particularized 
facts or provide any supporting evidence that support a claim that petitioner was charged, 
convicted, or sentenced in a more severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, 
ethnicities, or national origins.  (Id., § 745, subd. (a)(3)-(4).)  Nor does petitioner describe or 
attach supporting documentary evidence concerning these claims. 
 
Petitioner also seeks disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act to obtain evidence 
supporting his claims.  (See Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e).)  We granted review in 
In re Montgomery, S287339 (Montgomery) to consider issues related to discovery requests under 
the Racial Justice Act.  Because our resolution of the issues presented in Montgomery may affect 
the availability of discovery under the Racial Justice Act, which may in turn affect the ability of a 
petitioner to plead claims under that statute, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and discovery 
request are denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this 
court decides Montgomery.  (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [“A petition raising a claim [under 
the Racial Justice Act] on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence 
that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be 
deemed a successive or abusive petition”].) 
 
 
 
S288002 
  
PRADO (RUBEN  
 
  
BALDEMAR) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
 
S288019 
  
KHA (TUE THANH TRI) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
 
S288033 
  
VILLALPANDO (MACARIO)  
 
  
ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
 
S288037 
  
WAXLAX (CHARLES  
 
  
KENNETH) ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  (See People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 
[a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available documentary 
evidence].) 
 
 
 
S288138 
  
RUIZ (JASON ROBERT) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 



[PDF page 31]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
500 
 
 
 
S288190 
  
HOUT (BORAN) ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends that he is 
entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020.  (Pen. Code, § 745.)  In this respect, 
petitioner alleges that he was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of 
other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly 
situated, that prosecutors in Los Angeles County more frequently sought or obtained convictions 
for more serious offenses against people who share his race, ethnicity, or national origin and that 
he received a longer or more severe sentence due to the race of one of the victims than other 
similarly situated defendants in cases with victims of a different race, ethnicity, or national origin 
in Los Angeles County. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an 
indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)  
The request for counsel is denied. 
 
Petitioner “has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief” under the Racial 
Justice Act at this time.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petition fails to allege particularized 
facts or provide any supporting evidence that support a claim that petitioner was charged, 
convicted, or sentenced in a more severe manner than similarly situated individuals in cases with 
victims of a different race, ethnicity, or national origin.  (Id., § 745, subd. (a)(3)-(4).)  Nor does 
petitioner describe or attach supporting documentary evidence concerning these claims. 
 
Petitioner also seeks disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act to obtain evidence 
supporting his claims.  (See Pen. Code, §§ 745, subd. (d), 1473, subd. (e).)  We granted review in 
In re Montgomery, S287339 (Montgomery) to consider issues related to discovery requests under 
the Racial Justice Act.  Because our resolution of the issues presented in Montgomery may affect 
the availability of discovery under the Racial Justice Act, which may in turn affect the ability of a 
petitioner to plead claims under that statute, the petition for writ of habeas corpus and discovery 
request are denied without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this 
court decides Montgomery.  (See Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [“A petition raising a claim [under 
the Racial Justice Act] on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence 
that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be 
deemed a successive or abusive petition”].) 
 
 
 
S288191 
  
WASHINGTON (RODERICK  
 
  
NATHANIEL) ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  (See In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 
[courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that are untimely]; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 
750, 767-769 [courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that are successive]; People v. Duvall 
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably 
available documentary evidence]; In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ of 
habeas corpus must allege sufficient facts with particularity].) 
 



[PDF page 32]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
501 
 
 
 
S288346 
  
SINGH (HARMANPREET) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  Individual claims are denied, as applicable.  (See 
People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include 
copies of reasonably available documentary evidence]; In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a 
petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege sufficient facts with particularity]; In re Miller 
(1941) 17 Cal.2d 734, 735 [courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that are repetitive].) 
 
 
 
S288927 
  
CUELLAR (TRAVIS JUSTIN)  
 
  
ON H.C. 
 
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied 
 
 
 
S289341 
  
TAYLOR (MATTHEW  
 
  
SCOTT) v. S.C. (PEOPLE) 
 
The petition for writ of mandate is construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus has been read and considered.  Petitioner contends, among 
other claims, that he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745).  
In this respect, petitioner claims the superior court erred by failing to consider his Racial Justice 
Act claims with his petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 and 
that the superior court’s denial of the Racial Justice Act claim was motivated by bias and 
discrimination. 
 
The petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the 
Racial Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an 
indigent petitioner who alleges facts that would establish a violation of the Racial Justice Act].) 
 
The petition also fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial 
Justice Act.  (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)  The petition fails to allege particularized facts that 
adequately describe any alleged actions and how they reflected racial bias or animus.  (Pen. Code, 
§ 745, subd. (a)(1); cf. In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus 
must allege sufficient facts with particularity].)  Nor does petitioner describe or attach supporting 
documentary evidence concerning racial bias or animus or the use of racially discriminatory 
language.  (Cf. People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus 
must include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence].) 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 
 
 
 
S289397 
  
MACKLIN (EDWARD) ON  
 
  
H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  (See People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 
[a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available documentary 
evidence]; In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 [a petition for writ of habeas corpus must allege 
sufficient facts with particularity].) 
 



[PDF page 33]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
502 
 
 
 
S289785 
  
WAXLAX (CHARLES  
 
  
KENNETH) ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.  (See In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767-769 
[courts will not entertain habeas corpus claims that are successive].) 
 
 
 
S289957 
  
WILLIAMS (G. GREGORY)  
 
  
ON H.C. 
 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus or other appropriate relief and application for stay are 
denied. 
 
 
 
S289163 
B327598 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
LOPEZ (VIVEANA) v.  
 
  
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 
 
Publication request denied (case closed) 
 
 
 
S289169 
G064303 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 3 
IN RE A.H. 
 
The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to  
May 29, 2025. 
 
 
 
S289537 
H050893 Sixth Appellate District 
PEOPLE v. CARRILLO  
 
  
(URIEL) 
 
The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to  
May 29, 2025. 
 
 
 
S239552 
  
PEOPLE v. WASHINGTON  
 
  
(DARNELL KEITH) 
 
Extension of time granted 
 
 
On application of appellant, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant’s opening brief is 
extended to June 20, 2025. 
 
 
 
S286520 
B328333 Second Appellate District, Div. 1 
PEOPLE v. ALLEN (DAVID  
 
  
LEE) 
 
Extension of time granted 
 
 
On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file 
the opening brief on the merits is extended to May 16, 2025.  No further extensions are 
contemplated. 
 



[PDF page 34]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
503 
 
 
 
S287261 
A169465 First Appellate District, Div. 4 
MAYOR (JOSEPH) v.  
 
  
WORKERS’  
 
  
COMPENSATION APPEALS  
 
  
BOARD & ROSS VALLEY  
 
  
SANITATION DISTRICT 
 
Extension of time granted 
 
 
On application of amicus curiae, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, and good 
cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the amicus curiae brief is extended to 
June 2, 2025. 
 
 
 
S052210 
  
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ  
 
  
(JERRY) 
 
Order filed 
 
 
This court’s June 21, 2023 order granting appellant’s application for an order staying the 
automatic appeal is modified as follows. 
 
On the court’s own motion, the limited stay under the court’s prior order is extended to permit 
further proceedings, including appeal, related to the superior court’s denial of appellant’s petition 
for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.  (See People v. Rodriguez (app. received Sept. 
10, 2024, F088607).) 
 
Appellant’s obligation to file monthly status updates is vacated.  Appellant shall serve and file 
status updates with this court regarding the status of the Penal Code section 1172.6 proceedings 
no later than every 90 days.  The first such report is due no later than July 15, 2025.  
Notwithstanding this schedule, appellant shall promptly serve and file with this court notification 
of when the Court of Appeal:  (1) appoints counsel; and (2) disposes his appeal. 
 
If appellant contends any changes in the law (including any ameliorative statute) since the filing 
of his supplemental reply brief are relevant to this appeal, excluding any relief permitted by Penal 
Code section 1172.6, appellant shall serve and file a second supplemental opening brief not to 
exceed 50 pages on or before June 4, 2025, addressing those changes and their relevance to this 
case.  Within 30 days after any second supplemental opening brief has been filed pursuant to this 
order, the People may serve and file a second supplemental answering brief, not to exceed 50 
pages in length.  Appellant may thereafter serve and file a reply, not to exceed 25 pages in length, 
within 20 days after the People have filed their second supplemental answering brief. 
 
Other than the reporting and briefing obligations set forth above, proceedings in this appeal, 
including oral argument, remain stayed pending further order of this court. 
 
 



[PDF page 35]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
504 
 
 
 
S289329 
  
HAZLE (DECOY A.) v. S.C.  
 
  
(PEOPLE) 
 
Motion to file document under seal denied 
 
 
Defendant’s application to file the unredacted petition for writ of certiorari under seal is denied.  
(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d), 8.46(d)(6).)  The clerk of this court is directed to return the 
unredacted petition for writ of certiorari lodged conditionally under seal to defendant, unless 
defendant notifies the clerk in writing within 30 days after the date of this order that the lodged 
petition for writ of certiorari is to be filed as part of the public record.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, 
rule 8.46(d)(7).) 
 
 
 
S289536 
  
ALEGRIA (JUAN) v.  
 
  
WORKERS’  
 
  
COMPENSATION APPEALS  
 
  
BOARD (PAK’S CABINETS) 
 
Order filed 
 
 
Petitioners’ request for permission to file an amended petition for writ of mandate is hereby 
denied. 
 
 



[PDF page 36]
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO 
APRIL 16, 2025 
505 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR 
SAN FRANCISCO SESSION 
MAY 6 AND 7, 2025 
 
 
 
 
The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at its 
courtroom in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, 
Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California, on May 6 and 7, 2025.  The public may attend in person and also 
have access to argument via live-streaming on the judicial branch website:  https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/. 
 
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2025 — 9:00 A.M. 
 
(1) 
In re Ja.O. et al., S280572 
 
(2) 
EpicentRx, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (EpiRx, L.P., Real Party in 
Interest), S282521 
 
(3) 
Taking Offense v. State of California, S270535 
 
1:30 P.M. 
 
(4) 
People v. Choyce (William Jennings), [Automatic Appeal], S169090 
 
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2025 — 9:00 A.M. 
 
(5) 
People v. Faial (Jerry Anthony), S273840 
 
(6) 
People v. Dain (Yacob), S283924 
 
(7) 
People v. Dunn (Aaron Norman), [Automatic Appeal], S184521 
 
1:30 P.M. 
 
(8) 
People v. Bankston (Anthony George), [Automatic Appeal], S044739 
 
 
 
 
           GUERRERO                   
 
 
           Chief Justice 
 
 
 
If exhibits are to be transmitted to this court, counsel must apply to the court for permission.  
(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.224(c).)