Racial Justice Act (RJA)

Name: In re Lynex
Case #: B344569
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/19/2026

An appellant need only allege a plausible violation of the RJA to be entitled to appointed counsel. A prima facie showing of entitlement to relief is not required, contrary to the trial court's ruling. Additionally, the trial court was unaware of its discretion to allow the appellant to amend his petition to include a plausible allegation of an RJA violation. Lastly, the trial court erred by treating the petition as a prohibited successive habeas petition; appellant was not required to address procedural bars at the initial stage of habeas proceedings.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gomez
Case #: D086608
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/04/2026

Although appellant forfeited his claim under the Racial Justice Act (RJA), the claim would have been denied on the merits because the prosecutor used the dog analogy solely to explain circumstantial evidence. When the prosecutor later more directly compared appellant to a dog in a single comment, it was in the context of the state of the evidence, not anyone’s character or inherent traits. The Court remands for resentencing because the sentence on the VC 10851 conviction was unauthorized as no findings were made as to whether appellant had been previously convicted within the meaning of PC 666.5(a).

The…

View Full Summary
Name: Harmon v. Superior Court
Case #: E086720
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/20/2026

Public defenders have discretion to decline to represent a petitioner seeking postconviction habeas relief and need not make a showing of unavailability. Representation of an indigent person in prosecuting a habeas petition does not fall under GC 27706(a), which mandates appointment of the PD in the trial phase of a case unless there is a conflict or other showing of unavailability. Instead, it falls under GC 27706(g), which states the PD “may” represent an indigent person “in a proceeding of any nature,” permitting the PD to refuse appointment.

[Editor’s note: A concurring opinion would have found the issuance of the OSC…

View Full Summary
Name: Hernandez v. Superior Court
Case #: H052774
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/07/2025

Prima facie RJA violation (PC 745(h)(2)) established where defendant demonstrated “more than a mere possibility” RJA violation occurred. Latino defendant alleged officer: employed racial profiling during traffic stop and subsequent pat frisk, assumed defendant had criminal history based on race, directed racially stereotypical language toward defendant and bystanders, and used “Sureño whistle” while searching defendant. Defendant’s statistical evidence and expert declaration, combined with bodycam video, demonstrated facts which, if true, established a substantial likelihood that a RJA violation occurred.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Lalo)
Case #: E085658
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/24/2025

The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting defendant’s motion for discovery under PC 745, the Racial Justice Act (RJA). The Court finds that defendant’s factual scenario that he was overcharged to pressure him before trial is unsupported. His assertion that he faced more severe charges than another defendant is not consistent with the information provided for that other case. Defendant’s statewide (rather than countywide) statistics fail to present a factual allegation of specific misconduct. Because defendant failed to demonstrate good cause, the trial court erred in granting discovery.

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Midell
Case #: A168758
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/28/2025

The Court of Appeal holds that defense counsel’s likening of appellant to an “animal” was a defense tactic, thus appellant is procedurally barred under invited error from using those references as a basis for reversal under the Racial Justice Act (RJA, PC 745). Nor did the trial court have a sua sponte duty to inquire into counsel’s potential RJA violation. The Court finds appellant forfeited any RJA claim based on the trial court’s description of appellant’s conduct as “animalistic” by failing to object at the time. The Court finds that mental delusions are inadmissible under PC 28 as a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Huerta – Depublished
Case #: F088041
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/29/2025
Subsequent History: Depublished 10/29/25 (S292760)

A RJA claim under PC 745 (a)(3) and (a)(4)(A) must allege facts showing racial disparities tied to a qualifying offense—not merely enhancements. Petitioner filed a habeas writ alleging RJA violations under (a)(3) and (a)(4)(A), based on charging and sentencing related to his gang enhancements. For a claim under (a)(3), the petitioner must allege facts showing he was “charged or convicted of a more serious offense” than similarly situated individuals of other races, and under 745(a)(4)(A), petitioner must allege facts showing he received a longer sentence than “similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense.” The gang enhancements are not qualifying…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jimenez
Case #: H049356
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/03/2025

The Court of Appeal holds there was no error in denying defendant's RJA motion without prejudice. The motion requested dismissal of the felony-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) on
grounds of its racially disparate application. "With utmost respect for the plausibility of his legal theory", the court found the report on which the claim relied to be "logically infirm" and found it omitted necessary and available information. For a statistics-based challenge, the court "would expect at least as a starting point a reasoned examination of (1) those defendants who were charged with murder in the relevant period and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wagstaff
Case #: H050597
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/12/2025

The Court of Appeal holds that counsel’s failure to object to the court’s statements during jury selection and sentencing forfeited appellant’s RJA (PC 745) claims based on those statements. [Editor's Note: The statement at sentencing included the trial court's description of the black client as a "strong young buck." The Attorney General conceded the use of this term violated the RJA but the Court of Appeal rejected this concession] Further, the Court of Appeal held that a peremptory challenge of a juror did not violate the RJA or CCP 231.7.  And the trial court was not required to instruct the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wilson
Case #: B323666
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 06/09/2025

No ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to make an RJA (PC 745) objection to use of the term "gorilla pimp."  In this sex trafficking case, defense counsel was not ineffective as a matter of law for failing to make an RJA objection to the prosecutor’s use during closing argument of the term “gorilla pimp,” which an expert testified was sex-trafficking slang for a physically abusive pimp. The opinion suggested the issue instead should be resolved in a habeas proceeding.  The Court also holds that the trial court did not error under section 654 in sentencing appellant on both the…

View Full Summary