Miscellaneous Orders
MISC. ORDER 2009-008
BY THE COURT:
In appeals wherein the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court has not expired, court-appointed counsel may be reimbursed for an additional four hours of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court which raises the issues of whether an adjudication sustained by a defendant in the juvenile court, while a minor, qualifies as a prior felony conviction for purposes of increasing the maximum sentence under the California Three Strikes Law or as a prior conviction for purposes of imposing an upper term of imprisonment under the fact of a prior conviction exception enunciated in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270. (See People v. Nguyen (July 2, 2009, S154947)___Cal.4th___.)
Court-appointed counsel will not be required to file a motion to expand the scope of their appointment for preparation of a petition based on either of these issues. The claim for reimbursement for this work is to be submitted as part of the claim for compensation. A copy of the petition must be submitted with the claim.
Dated: July 16, 2009
SCOTLAND, P.J.
MISC. ORDER 2007-016
BY THE COURT:
As dictated by Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, this intermediate appellate court is bound by the decisions issued by the California Supreme Court in People v. Black (July 19, 2007, S126182 ___ Cal.4th ___ (Black II)) and People v. Sandoval (July 19, 2007, S148917 ___ Cal.4th ___ (Sandoval)).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, in any case in which appellant’s opening brief has been filed, this court shall not accept for filing any supplemental briefing challenging Black II and Sandoval on federal constitutional grounds. Appellants shall be deemed to have challenged the decisions in Black II and Sandoval on any such federal constitutional grounds, and to have thereby preserved the issues for petition for review to the California Supreme Court and petitions for appellate or collateral review by the federal courts.
Dated: July 26, 2007
SCOTLAND, P.J.
MISC. ORDER 2007-003
BY THE COURT:
In pending appeals in which an appellant’s opening brief was filed prior to the date this order is issued, and in which an opinion has not yet been filed, an application for leave to file a supplemental brief shall not be required before filing of a supplemental brief arguing, based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Cunningham v. California, (No. 05-6551. January 22, 2007, ___ U.S. ___; ___ S.Ct. ___; ___ L.Ed.2d ___; 2007 WL 135687; 2007 U.S.LEXIS 1324; 2007 DJDAR 965), that imposition of the upper term is unconstitutional. Henceforth, appellants shall not submit for filing any application for leave to file a supplemental brief challenging imposition of the upper term premised on Cunningham.
Any supplemental appellant’s opening brief submitted pursuant to this order shall be served and filed on or before February 23, 2007. If a supplemental brief is filed pursuant to this order, the time for filing respondent’s brief shall be extended by 30 days.
If respondent’s brief has already been filed, respondent shall have leave to file a supplemental respondent’s brief within 15 days of filing of the supplemental opening brief, and any appellant’s supplemental reply brief shall be served and filed within 10 days of filing of the supplemental respondent’s brief.
Dated: January 24, 2007
SCOTLAND, P.J.
