At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court granted no petitions for review. There wasn’t even a grant-and-hold in a criminal case, which now happens almost every week.
We’ve already reported two denials — of a Ninth Circuit request for an answer to a state law question and of a Tinder petition. (For some reason, the Tinder denial doesn’t appear on the conference list.)
Other conference actions of note include:
- The court depublished two opinions. In People v. Huynh, the Sixth District Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s arguments that there had been prejudicial discovery violations, error concerning gang expert testimony, and insufficient evidence to support the conviction and gang enhancement for unlawful possession of a billy. The opinion of the Fourth District, Division Two, in In re M.A. concerned, among other things, collateral estoppel and inconsistent family court and juvenile court findings regarding a biological father’s parental rights.
- The court dismissed review in Apigee v. Superior Court, a case that had been on hold waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, which held state courts have jurisdiction over class actions under the federal Securities Act of 1933.
- Exercising its self-circumscribed constitutional authority, the court recommended clemency for two men. (Here and here.) Regarding one of them, Quintin Morris, the Governor’s legal affairs secretary reported significant doubt about the validity of the man’s conviction due to questions about eyewitness identification evidence, an issue of particular interest to Justice Goodwin Liu.