[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).)