CA Supreme Court petition for review stats over a year period.

A list of the unpublished decisions accepted for CA Supreme Court review over a year period is listed below. A more comprehensive list covering a seven year period will be included at a later time. There are no family law cases represented and there are NO pro per petitions for review represented which reflects a discriminatory access to the court system for a few select litigants violating the equal protection standard mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The majority of cases have also been accepted for review ALTHOUGH there is a CA Supreme Court case pending on the same issue. Title 8.500 (b) which specifies the grounds for review reads as  follows:

(b) Grounds for review

The Supreme Court may order review of a Court of Appeal decision:

(1)When necessary to secure uniformity of decision or to settle an important question of law;

(2)When the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction;

(3)When the Court of Appeal decision lacked the concurrence of sufficient qualified justices; or

(4)For the purpose of transferring the matter to the Court of Appeal for such proceedings as the Supreme Court may order.

If there is already a supreme court case pending on the same issues why is a review petition granted? The other question that parents have to ask themselves is why are our cases not represented in this Court in ANY capacity?

Docket  Description Type of case Decision Name of Justice Review petition initiated Review granted Votes ordering review
H039428[PDF] [DOC] Gillespie v. Svale del Grande 4/17/14 CA6 Case Details civil Reversed denied arbitration BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN 05/19/14   07/09/2014 deferred until another Supreme court   case with same issues resolved Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
G047358[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Vargas 4/11/14 CA4/3 Case Details cr affirm Ikola 05/22/14 6/25/2014: The petition for review is granted, and the above-entitled matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the validity of the enhancement imposed in this case under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d); see People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 107-108; People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080, fn. 10.) Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
F066645[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Nasser 3/10/14 CA5 Case Details cr affirm Kane 04/22/14 06/25/14 Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
B245901[PDF] [DOC] Ybarra v. Apartment Inv. & Management Co. 3/13/14 CA2/2 Case Details civil Order denying motion to compel arbitration reversed Ashman-Gerst 04/22/14 6/25/2014 The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles, S204032 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
A135553[PDF] [DOC] Cheroti v. Harvey & Madding 4/10/14 CA1/1 Case Details civil Order denying motion to compel arbitration reversed Margulies 05/21/14 Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
B243204[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Prado 3/6/14 CA2/5 Case Details cr Affirm in part, reverse in part, remanded Thompson 04/07/14 6/18/2014 The petitions for review are granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending the finality of our disposition of a related issue in People v. Chiu, S202724 (filed on June 2, 2014) – Cal.4th Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
G048951[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Lara 3/4/14 CA4/3 Case Details cr Affirm THOMPSON 04/14/14 5/21/2014 The petition for review of defendant David Gonzales Lara is denied. The People’s petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Conley, S211275 Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
H038508[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Espinoza 1/31/14 CA6 Case Details cr Reversed and remanded BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN Grover concurring and dissenting 03/07/14 05/14/2014 Respondent’s petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in In re Alatriste, S214652 and In re Bonilla, S214960 Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
C063037[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Uy 12/31/13 CA3 Case Details cr affirm as modified as to one defendant, reverse convictions second defendant Mauro 02/03/14 04/30/2014 Defendant Uy’s petition for review is granted, and further action in his case is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Gutierrez and Moffett, S206365/S206771 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)) or pending further order of the court. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J., BAXTER, A.J., WERDEGAR, A.J., CHIN, A.J., CORRIGAN, A.J., LIU, A.J. (Received 05/02/14)
B239519[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Hubbard 12/31/13 CA2/1 Case Details cr All convictions reversed, court directed to dismiss charges ROTHSCHILD 02/11/14 04/09/14 Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
H039330[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Moran 12/16/13 CA6 Case Details cr We strike the probation condition requiring appellant to not enter the premises or adjacent parking lot of any home depot store in California. ELIA, 01/16/14 03/26/14 Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
H037246[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Miller 12/20/13 CA6 Case Details cr Affirm Premo, J Untimely petition for review 02/04/2014 03/26/2014 The court having been advised that defendant Todd Russell Miller died on January 20, 2014, the petition for review is granted and the cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, with directions to enter an order in Case No. H037246 permanently abating all proceedings with respect to defendant upon verification of the death and to require the Superior Court for Santa Clara County to enter an order to that effect in Case No. C1081125. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
D063945[PDF] [DOC] So. Coast Framing v. WCAB 12/9/13 CA4/1 Case Details civil workers comp order annulled MCINTYRE 01/24/14 03/19/14
B253237[PDF] [DOC] In re Murray 12/23/13 CA2/8 Case Details cr habeas corpus granted judgment reversed as to resentencing RUBIN 01/30/14 03/12/2014 The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending our decisions in People v. Moffett, S206771, and People v. Gutierrez, S206365 Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ
B244602[PDF] [DOC] In re Mark R. 12/16/13 CA2/7 Case Details juvenile delinquency affirm, reverse second restitution PERLUSS 01/23/14 03/12/2014 The People’s petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Luis M. v. Superior Court, S207314 (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. Appellant’s petition for review is denied Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
G046736[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Vega 12/23/13 CA4/3 Case Details cr reversed for resentencig Aronson 01/23/14 02/26/2014 The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Conley, S211275 (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. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
G046681[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Brambila 10/31/13 CA4/3 Case Details cr Affirm Rylaarsdam 12/11/13 01/29/2014 The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Centeno, S209957, (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: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
E054970[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Zarate 11/5/13 CA4/2 Case Details cr affirm, sentence vacated, remanded for resentencig Hollenhurst, Miller concurring and dissenting 12/09/13 01/21/2014 The People’s petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Conley, S211275 (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. Defendant’s petition for review is denied. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
B229255[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Stratis 10/21/13 CA2/5 Case Details cr life sentence without possibility of parole reversed, remanded for resenting Kumar, Turner and Mosk concurring and dissenting 11/20/13 01/21/2014 The People’s petition 01/21/2014 People’s petition for review and defendant Christopher Stratis’s petition for review are both granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in People v. Moffett, S206771, People v. Gutierrez, S206365, and People v. Banks, S213819 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
A135892[PDF] [DOC] Friends College San Mateo v. San Mateo Co. 9/26/13 CA1/1 Case Details civil Affirm Sepulveda 11/05/13 01/15/14 Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
G047080[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Mallett 10/1/13 CA4/3 Case Details cr remanded for resentencing Moore 11/13/13 12/18/2013 The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Conley, S211275 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ
G047277[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Zapata 9/20/13 CA4/3 Case Details cr Affirm in part, reverse in part, remanded Rylaarsdam 10/22/13 12/11/2013 The People’s petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Conley, S211275 (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. Defendant’s petition for review is denied. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
B236152[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Banks 8/28/13 CA2/2 Case Details cr affirm with modifications Ferns 10/07/13 12/11/2013 Petitioner Matthews’ petition for review is granted. Review is confined to the following issues: Was the evidence sufficient to establish that Matthews was a “major participant” within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d)? Does the true finding on the special circumstance violate due process? (U.S. Const., 5th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 7, 15; Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782.) Petitioner Banks’ petition for review is denied. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
H038316[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Trujillo 8/22/13 CA6 Case Details cr Judgment order of probation is reversed remanded Elia 09/30/13 11/26/13 Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ
E056160[PDF] [DOC] Gonzalez v. Metro Nissan of Redlands 9/12/13 CA4/2 Case Details civil reversed, remanded to grant defendants motion to compel arbitration Richli 10/22/13 11/26/2013 The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., S199119 (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: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
E054516[PDF] [DOC] B. H. v. Co. of San Bernardino 7/25/13 CA4/2 Case Details civil Affirm, Summary judgment granted on immunity claims Ramirez 08/30/13 11/13/13 Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
B235766[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Adderly 6/26/13 CA2/3 Case Details cr Habeas corpus petition denied Klein 08/02/2013 defendant and appellant 08/05/2013 people and respondent 10/16/2013 The People’s petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in People v. Gutierrez, S206365, and People v. Moffett, S206771 (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. Defendant’s petition for review is denied. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ
A136960[PDF] [DOC] In re Pulido 7/15/13 CA1/1 Case Details cr habeas corpus petition granted, sentence vacated remanded for resentencing Dondero 08/15/01 10/16/2013 The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending our decisions in People v. Moffett, S206771, and People v. Gutierrez, S206365 Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ
B232880[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Martinez 4/15/13 CA2/6 Case Details cr Affirm Perren 10/02/2013 The petition for review is granted. The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, with directions to recall its remittitur in People v. Martinez, B232880, and to refile its opinion in that case.
A135206[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Broyles 7/29/13 CA1/2 Case Details cr Affirm Richman 09/09/13 10/02/2013 The petition for review is granted. The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, to permit it to reconcile its opinion with the abstract of judgment and the minute order of sentencing, including the imposition of any mandatory enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
A128197[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Blackwell 6/20/13 CA1/5 Case Details cr sentence vacated, remanded for resentencing Needham 03/16/2012 Petition for review denied
B233833[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Cortez 5/30/13 CA2/8 Case Details cr conviction reversed for one defendant, affirm defendant Flier, Grimes dissenting 07/09/2013 defendant and appellant 07/10/2013 people and respondent The People’s petition for review is granted. Appellant Bernal’s petition for review is denied. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
B235015[PDF] [DOC] Tract 19051 HOA v. Kemp 5/15/13 CA2/4 Case Details civil attorney fees reversed SUZUKAWA, 06/25/13 8/28/2013 The petition for review is granted. The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Is a prevailing homeowner entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action by the homeowners association to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not such a development and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted? Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.
B224505A[PDF] [DOC] P. v. Mauricio 5/30/13 CA2/8 Case Details cr sentence reversed, remanded for resentencing Bigelow 02/29/2012 Review denied 12/4/2012 On October 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court vacated this court’s opinion filed on November 28, 2011. Therefore, the remittitur issued on March 7, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDER RECALLED. 8/21/2013 Petition for review granted in Supreme Court. 7/14/2014 The above-entitled matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, with the directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s