Prima Facie Stage

Name: People v. Jimenez
Case #: H049356
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/06/2026

The Court of Appeal holds that appellant failed to make a prima facie showing under the RJA that the prosecution more frequently sought special-circumstance murder convictions against people who share appellant’s race or ethnicity than against members of another group “who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated.” (PC 745.) The Court concludes appellant’s statistical report does not satisfy PC 745(a)(3)’s second criterion: it conflated the general population with the population that has engaged in similar conduct and is similarly situated and conflated the occurrences of a more serious charge with the frequency of that charging decision.

The full…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Haney
Case #: A170412
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 09/16/2026

The Court of Appeal published only the introductory portion of the opinion to give context to a separate concurrence regarding RJA claims based on peremptory challenges. While the defendant's habeas petition was pending in the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court decided People v. Hazlett (2026) __ Cal.5th __ (S126387), which required the denial with prejudice of the portion of the defendant's RJA claim based on the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. 

Justice Streeter wrote a concurring opinion, noting he was required to concur, but expressing agreement with Justice Evans' dissent in Hazlett, and adding historical context to give further…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Williams
Case #: E087071
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/17/2026

Defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden establishing "a substantial likelihood" that a violation of the RJA occurred (PC 745(c) & (h)(2)). Defendant presented evidence that (1) a juror stated during voir dire that he “grew up with racism”; (2) a prosecutor made public statements described as hateful toward African Americans; and (3) Black defendants in San Bernadino County received sentencing enhancements more frequently than White defendants. The Court found the juror’s testimony that he had overcome the racial bias demonstrated this was not evidence of bias toward defendant; the prosecutor had only appeared twice to continue the matter,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hazlett
Case #: S126387
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 08/27/2026

The California Supreme Court holds that excusing the sole remaining Black prospective juror with a peremptory challenge did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson/Wheeler, given a race-neutral reason in the juror’s equivocal views on the death penalty. The Court concludes that the Racial Justice Act (RJA) does not apply to the basis for peremptory challenges. It further holds there was no other prejudicial RJA violation and affirms the judgment. Justice Evans (joined by Liu) would find a prima facie Batson/Wheeler violation and believes the RJA applies to peremptory challenges; Justice Liu (joined by Evans) would find…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Pride
Case #: E085951
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/28/2026

Trial court erred in finding Pride had not met the RJA's minimal pleading requirement for appointment of counsel. To be entitled to counsel, petitioners must only allege facts that would establish a violation of the RJA. (PC 745.) Pride satisfied this minimal requirement when he alleged that his trial counsel had a discussion with the prosecutor regarding the importance of Pride's conviction to avoid future incidents of racial unrest.

Pride demonstrated a plausible justification for RJA discovery. Further, at the discovery stage, the alleged discussion was sufficient to demonstrate a plausible justification that a RJA violation has occurred.  The court of…

View Full Summary
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: 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: 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: McIntosh v. Superior Court of San Diego County
Case #: D084379
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/28/2025

The trial court erroneously denied defendant’s request for appointed counsel in his habeas corpus petition raising RJA claims based on the ground that he did not meet the prima facie showing required for an order to show cause. PC 1473(e) imposes a duty on the trial court to assess a request for counsel independently of the court’s duty to assess whether to issue an OSC. To remedy the error, the Court of Appeal construed defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandate and granted the petition, directing the trial court to conduct the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, review granted
Case #: C100856
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/29/2024
Subsequent History: Review granted 1/15/25 (S288202)

The Court of Appeal holds that the Racial Justice Act permits a defendant to file a stand-alone postjudgment discovery motion before filing a habeas corpus petition. Additionally, an order denying a postjudgment discovery motion under the Act is not appealable, rather a defendant’s remedy is by writ of mandate. [Editor's Note: This court expressly disagreed with In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, which held that a trial court lacks authority to entertain a postjugment discovery…

View Full Summary