Does a trial court have discretion to dismiss either the greater or lesser included offense in order to avoid the prohibition against multiple convictions?
Does a trial court have discretion to dismiss either the greater or lesser included offense involving the same conduct of driving under the influence causing death in order to avoid the prohibition against multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses? Supplemental briefing was ordered on 9/11/26 on the following issue: Is Vehicle Code section 23153 [causing bodily injury while driving…
Section 1172.75 resentencing – May a trial court reimpose the upper term without complying with 1170(b)(2)?
This case presents the following issue: May a trial court reimpose a previously imposed upper term sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) where the facts underlying one or more aggravating circumstances were neither stipulated to by the defendant nor found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial…
PC 1172.6 – sufficiency of the evidence in aiding and abetting attempted murder
Did substantial evidence support the trial court’s finding in resentencing proceedings under Penal Code section 1172.6 that defendant, who led police on a highspeed chase with an armed passenger, intended to kill the pursuing police officers and was therefore liable for their attempted murders as an aider and abettor? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred…
Is 50 years to life for a juvenile offender the functional equivalent of LWOP under 1170(d)(1)?
This case presents the following issue: Is a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life in prison entitled to recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) on the ground that the sentence is the functional equivalent of life imprisonment without parole? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: Second District…
Admissibility of statements obtained through a Perkins operation after defendant invoked right to remain silent.
This case presents the following issues: (1) If a defendant has invoked his right to remain silent while being interrogated by a law enforcement officer, are incriminating statements obtained through a subsequent Perkins operation (i.e., the use of an undercover agent to question a jailed defendant) admissible as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt at trial? (See Illinois v. Perkins…
PC 1172.6 (d)(3) hearing – admissibility of an officer’s preliminary hearing testimony recounting a codefendant’s statements
Did the trial court err by finding that an officer’s preliminary hearing testimony recounting a codefendant’s statements was admissible at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing under the declarations against interest exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1230)?
Trial court’s jurisdiction to modify a death sentence under PC 1172.75.
(1) May a superior court modify a death judgment under the recall and resentencing procedure in Penal Code section 1172.75? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the exclusivity provision of Penal Code section 1509 precludes modification of a death judgment under Penal Code section 1172.75? (3) Did the superior court have jurisdiction to resentence defendant pursuant…
PC 1172.6 – Whether a not-true jury finding on firearm enhancement and special circumstance precludes trial court finding appellant the actual killer?
Is a trial court precluded from finding that a defendant was the actual killer in a Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing proceeding where the jury found not true a personal firearm use enhancement and a robbery-murder special circumstance?
PC 1172.1 – Is there a presumption that a defendant will be resentenced to a lower term?
This case presents the following issues: (1) If a trial court recalls a defendant’s sentence upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1, is there a presumption that the defendant will not be resentenced to the same effective term? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by resentencing defendant…
Whether defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea should have been granted when the judge who accepted his plea was unavailable
The issues to be briefed and argued are as follows: 1. Did the trial court err under People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea where the judge who accepted his plea was not available to impose sentence due to matters beyond the trial court's control? 2. Did the Court of Appeal err…
Whether the CSC has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in capital cases following noncapital resentencing?
This case presents issues relating to the noncapital resentencing of a capital defendant following remand. The Court directed the parties to brief and argue whether this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal, or whether this appeal may be decided by the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); People v. Coleman (1991) 53 Cal.3d…
Whether a court commissioner may perform a bail review hearing in PRCS revocation proceedings?
Is conducting a bail review hearing in post-release community supervision revocation proceedings one of the “subordinate judicial duties” (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 22) that a court commissioner is permitted to perform without a stipulation by the parties?
Does the failure to allege premeditation and deliberation in the information render an indeterminate attempted murder sentence unauthorized?
Is defendant's indeterminate sentence for attempted murder unauthorized under Penal Code section 664, subdivision (a) because the prosecutor did not allege in the information that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: People v. Williams (C100503) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/11/26 (S295057)
Whether the jury must unanimously agree the People proved a listed controlled substance or an analog in order to convict?
When a defendant is charged with possession of a listed controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code section 11378, must the state prove, and must the jury unanimously agree, that the defendant possessed the actual listed controlled substance, and not an analog of that substance as defined under California Health and Safety Code section 11401? Or may the jury…
Sufficiency of the evidence for asportation in kidnapping
This case presents the following issue: Was there sufficient evidence of asportation to support defendants' convictions for kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a))? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: People v. Taylor (B327033) nonpub. opn., review granted 2/18/26 (S294338)
When PC 1170(b) sentencing error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Did the Court of Appeal err by declining to remand for resentencing under the amended Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)? (See People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069; People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730; People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416; People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354.)
Whether PC 417.3 (brandishing a firearm at a vehicle occupant) requires proof of subjective fear.
This case presents the following issue: Does drawing or exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner in the presence of a motor vehicle occupant (Pen. Code, § 417.3) require proof of both objective and subjective fear, or is proof of objective fear alone sufficient?
Whether Prop 57 allows certain conduct credits to be used to advance an indeterminately sentenced inmate’s eligible parole date.
Does Proposition 57 authorize the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award and apply earned credits to advance indeterminately sentenced persons’ minimum eligible parole dates?
Is a grand jury transcript admissible at a 1172.6 evidentiary hearing?
This case presents the following issue: Is a transcript of grand jury proceedings admissible at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: First District People v. Superior Court (Bustos-Montes) (A172776) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 8/13/2025 (S291507)
PC 1172.6 – Is a person convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter eligible for resentencing relief?
Is a person convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter eligible for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6?
Does Williamson require a workers compensation insurance fraud to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor?
Must workers’ compensation insurance fraud involving a kickback scheme be prosecuted as a misdemeanor under Labor Code section 139.32, subdivision (c), or may it be prosecuted as a felony under Penal Code section 550, subdivision (b)(3)? (See In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651.)
Whether resentencing courts may strike special circumstance findings for convictions before the effective date of section 1385.1?
The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Does Penal Code section 1385.1, which bars sentencing courts from striking special circumstance findings, apply to Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing proceedings for murder convictions occurring prior to the June 6, 1990 effective date of section 1385.1?
Whether good cause supported a subpoena for third-party discovery.
This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) bar a social media company from disclosing an individual’s account information in response to a criminal defendant’s subpoena? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by finding that good cause supported the subpoena for third-party discovery?