Reaching the California Supreme Court
Paul Wallin
February 07, 2010
It takes a lot of work to get a case to the California Supreme Court. With thousands and thousands of filings annually, the chances of getting your case reviewed by the seven justices are slim. The Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction over death penalty case reviews, which receives automatic review. Outside of the death penalty judgments, the Supreme Court will only review cases that come from the Court of Appeals if they "secure uniformity of decisions" in the appellate courts or "to settle an important question of law." See California Rules of Court; Rule 8.500(b)(1).
Based on the statistics released by the Supreme Court for the year of 2009, the Court reviewed a total of 110 cases. That is an increase of 3 cases from the previous year. Out of the 110 cases, 52 cases were civil matters. This leaves 58 criminal cases that were reviewed by the Court. However, among those 58 cases, 22 of them involved automatic appeals stemming from judgments of death, and 2 of them involved habeas corpus petitions relating to death penalty judgments. Only 34 cases, out of the thousands filed, involved noncapital criminal cases.
The few cases that get reviewed must grab the attention of the Justices sitting on the bench. The standard of review is four out of the seven Justices must agree to review the case.
One of the key ways of being able to get the Justices to look at the case is to not make a mistake in the procedural stage. Attorneys must make sure they follow all the deadlines for when a case can be filed. Failure to comply with the Court Rules will basically guarantee a rejection of the filing.
If a case is being reviewed by the Supreme Court because of the need for a uniformity of decision, there must be a precedent in the law, a direct conflict in the law exists, or an interpretation of the law may change long settled authority. In People v. Kelly (No. S164830), the court looked at whether the Court of Appeals judgment determining the validity of California Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 conflicted with the Compassion Use Act for medical marijuana.
In Kelly, the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of a defendant possessing more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act ("CUA") allowed for the use of medicinal marijuana. The CUA allowed for qualified patients to possess as much as is reasonably related to the patientīs current medical needs. In 2003, the California Legislature wanted to clear up this language by amending the CUA. The amended law allowed for qualified patients to have up to 8 ounces of marijuana. This amount was able to be increased to an amount to fit the patientīs needs with a doctorīs recommendation. The intent was to give a guideline to patients and law enforcement officials. The Court of Appeals overturned the defendantīs conviction and found that California Health and Safety Code 11362.77 impermissibly amended the CUA. They found that it burdened a defense under the CUA to a criminal charge of possessing or cultivating marijuana. The Court of Appeals also found that the severed from the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP).
The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court found that California Legislature impermissibly amended the CUA. However, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that section 11362.77 must be severed from the MMP.
Kelly was an example of a case that dealt with uniformity of decision. The law had precedent. A direct conflict existed on how to interpret the medicinal marijuana guidelines. The patients and law enforcements were affected by this law and the court needed to settle the controversy.
When the Supreme Court reviews a case because it deals with an important question of law, they will review the cases that affect public policy, cover an area that affects many California citizens, and are of first impression that affects every California citizen. In re E.J., No. S156933, the Supreme Court rejected the defendantīs claim that Jessicaīs Law should not be applied retroactively. Jessicaīs Law was designed to keep convicted sex offenders from living near parks or schools. This law was passed under Proposition 83 by 70% of the voters. The defendants claimed that Jessicaīs Law should not be applied retroactively because Proposition 83 was too broad and did not have language to be applied retroactively. The Court rejected part of defendantīs claims and concluded that the law could apply to thousands of sex offenders who were on parole when Proposition 83 was adopted, even if their crimes and convictions predated passage of the law. The Court transferred the rest of the defendantsī constitutional claims for further factual findings.
In re E.J. dealt with public policy. The law also had a devastating impact on sex offenders in California. Sex Offenders were generally exiled from urban areas, like San Francisco, because of Jessicaīs Law. This case also affects the safety and well-being of the children living in California. The Court stepped in to settle the controversy that would essentially affect every California citizen.
In re E.J. and Kelly are examples of cases that got reviewed by the California Supreme Court. These cases had a substantial impact on all California citizens. The Supreme Court is less willing to review a case if they feel the law in dispute affects only a handful of citizens.
The Southern California defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience handling cases dealing with all criminal matters. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, we will provide you with the best possible defense in your case. The attorneys at Walling & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.
Based on the statistics released by the Supreme Court for the year of 2009, the Court reviewed a total of 110 cases. That is an increase of 3 cases from the previous year. Out of the 110 cases, 52 cases were civil matters. This leaves 58 criminal cases that were reviewed by the Court. However, among those 58 cases, 22 of them involved automatic appeals stemming from judgments of death, and 2 of them involved habeas corpus petitions relating to death penalty judgments. Only 34 cases, out of the thousands filed, involved noncapital criminal cases.
The few cases that get reviewed must grab the attention of the Justices sitting on the bench. The standard of review is four out of the seven Justices must agree to review the case.
One of the key ways of being able to get the Justices to look at the case is to not make a mistake in the procedural stage. Attorneys must make sure they follow all the deadlines for when a case can be filed. Failure to comply with the Court Rules will basically guarantee a rejection of the filing.
If a case is being reviewed by the Supreme Court because of the need for a uniformity of decision, there must be a precedent in the law, a direct conflict in the law exists, or an interpretation of the law may change long settled authority. In People v. Kelly (No. S164830), the court looked at whether the Court of Appeals judgment determining the validity of California Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 conflicted with the Compassion Use Act for medical marijuana.
In Kelly, the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of a defendant possessing more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act ("CUA") allowed for the use of medicinal marijuana. The CUA allowed for qualified patients to possess as much as is reasonably related to the patientīs current medical needs. In 2003, the California Legislature wanted to clear up this language by amending the CUA. The amended law allowed for qualified patients to have up to 8 ounces of marijuana. This amount was able to be increased to an amount to fit the patientīs needs with a doctorīs recommendation. The intent was to give a guideline to patients and law enforcement officials. The Court of Appeals overturned the defendantīs conviction and found that California Health and Safety Code 11362.77 impermissibly amended the CUA. They found that it burdened a defense under the CUA to a criminal charge of possessing or cultivating marijuana. The Court of Appeals also found that the severed from the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP).
The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court found that California Legislature impermissibly amended the CUA. However, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that section 11362.77 must be severed from the MMP.
Kelly was an example of a case that dealt with uniformity of decision. The law had precedent. A direct conflict existed on how to interpret the medicinal marijuana guidelines. The patients and law enforcements were affected by this law and the court needed to settle the controversy.
When the Supreme Court reviews a case because it deals with an important question of law, they will review the cases that affect public policy, cover an area that affects many California citizens, and are of first impression that affects every California citizen. In re E.J., No. S156933, the Supreme Court rejected the defendantīs claim that Jessicaīs Law should not be applied retroactively. Jessicaīs Law was designed to keep convicted sex offenders from living near parks or schools. This law was passed under Proposition 83 by 70% of the voters. The defendants claimed that Jessicaīs Law should not be applied retroactively because Proposition 83 was too broad and did not have language to be applied retroactively. The Court rejected part of defendantīs claims and concluded that the law could apply to thousands of sex offenders who were on parole when Proposition 83 was adopted, even if their crimes and convictions predated passage of the law. The Court transferred the rest of the defendantsī constitutional claims for further factual findings.
In re E.J. dealt with public policy. The law also had a devastating impact on sex offenders in California. Sex Offenders were generally exiled from urban areas, like San Francisco, because of Jessicaīs Law. This case also affects the safety and well-being of the children living in California. The Court stepped in to settle the controversy that would essentially affect every California citizen.
In re E.J. and Kelly are examples of cases that got reviewed by the California Supreme Court. These cases had a substantial impact on all California citizens. The Supreme Court is less willing to review a case if they feel the law in dispute affects only a handful of citizens.
The Southern California defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience handling cases dealing with all criminal matters. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, we will provide you with the best possible defense in your case. The attorneys at Walling & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.
Print
Email
