Judge 
Party 
Law Firm PEOPLE v. HARDIN
S277487 | California State Supreme Court
Interested in this case?
Request a Demo Track this case, and find millions of cases like it, let us show you how.
Filed
Nov. 28, 2022
Issues
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter. This case presents the following issue: Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults sentenced to life without the possibility of parole from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults sentenced to parole-eligible terms are entitled to such consideration?
Related
Appellate Case
Last Updated: 7 months, 3 weeks ago
| Filing Date | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 4/15/2024 | Received: Receipt for Remittitur from Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven. | |
| 4/4/2024 | Remittitur issued | |
| 3/4/2024 | Opinion-Filed | Opinion filed: Judgment reversed. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Majority Opinion by Kruger, J. -- joined by Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Groban, and Jenkins, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Liu, J. Dissenting Opinion by Evans, J. |
| 3/1/2024 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted. To be filed Monday, March 4, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. | |
| 12/5/2023 | Cause argued and submitted | |
| 11/27/2023 | Order filed. The request of counsel in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of appellant at oral argument is hereby granted. Heidi Rummel will be allocated 20 minutes and Sara A. McDermott will be allocated 10 minutes of the 30-minute allotted time for oral argument. | |
| 11/22/2023 | Application filed. Application to Divide OA Time. Tony Hardin, Defendant and Appellant. Sara A. McDermott, Retained counsel. | |
| 11/15/2023 | Case ordered on calendar. To be argued on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:30 pm, in Los Angeles. Counsel will have the option to appear in person, or remotely via video Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2023-05-11. | |
| 11/14/2023 | Reply to supplemental brief filed. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People. Attorney: Helen H. Hong. | |
| 11/9/2023 | Supplemental brief filed. Defendant and Appellant: Tony Hardin. Attorney: Adeel Mohammadi. One extension granted for a total of 15 days:. 10/17/2023 Extension of time granted. Due on 11/09/2023 By 15 Day(s). | |
| 11/9/2023 | Supplemental brief filed. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People. Attorney: Helen H. Hong. One extension granted for a total of 15 days:. 10/17/2023 Extension of time granted. Due on 11/09/2023 By 15 Day(s). | |
| 11/9/2023 | Response to amicus curiae brief filed. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People. Attorney: Helen H. Hong. Response to amicus curiae brief filed. Due on 11/09/2023 By 15 Day(s). | |
| 11/1/2023 | Letter sent to: Dear Counsel:. Please be advised that the court has tentatively targeted this matter for oral argument the week of December 4, 2023. However, the court's oral argument calendars are not final until set by order, and oral argument in this matter may still take place during a different session. Counsel are therefore reminded of their obligation to immediately update the court on an ongoing basis if they believe good cause exists to avoid scheduling oral argument on any particular day during the court's scheduled oral argument weeks. Once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Sincerely,. JORGE E. NAVARRETE. Clerk and. Executive Officer of the Supreme Court. | |
| 10/25/2023 | Letter brief filed. Amicus curiae: District Attorney of the County of San Bernardino. Attorney: Brent J. Schultze. | |
| 10/25/2023 | Letter brief filed. Amicus curiae: Santa Clara County Independent Defense Counsel Office. Attorney: Brian C. McComas. Attorney: Eric Weaver. | |
| 10/25/2023 | Letter brief filed. Amicus curiae: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger. | |
| 10/25/2023 | Letter brief filed. Amicus curiae: Jeffrey Aaron. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Apryl Alexander. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Jeffrey Arnett. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Arielle Baskin-Sommers. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Sara Boyd. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: B. J. Casey. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Hayley Cleary. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Alexandra Cohen. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Judith Edersheim. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Adriana Galván. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Catherine Hartley. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Luke Hyde. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Catherine Insel. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Daniel Keating. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Robert Kinscherff. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Grace Mucci. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Ashley Nellis. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Cecil Reynolds. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Joseph Ryan. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Elizabeth Shulman. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Jennifer Silvers. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Leah Somerville. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Elizabeth Sowell. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Juvenile Law Center. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: American Academy of Pediatric Neuropsychology. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Pacific Juvenile Defender Center. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: The Sentencing Project. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. | |
| 10/17/2023 | Extension of time granted. On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time for both parties to serve and file their supplemental briefs is extended to and including November 9, 2023. The time for respondent to serve and file an answer to the amicus curiae briefs is extended to and including November 9, 2023. | |
| 10/13/2023 | Application for extension of time filed. Respondent requests an extension of 15 days to November 9, 2023 to file the supplemental brief. | |
| 10/4/2023 | Order filed. The People are directed to serve and file an answer to the amicus curiae briefs on or before October 25, 2023. No extension of time for the filing of this response is contemplated. | |
| 10/4/2023 | Supplemental briefing ordered. The parties are directed to serve and file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: Whether the first step of the two-part inquiry used to evaluate equal protection claims, which asks whether two or more groups are similarly situated for the purposes of the law challenged, should be eliminated in cases concerning disparate treatment of classes or groups of persons, such that the only inquiry is whether the challenged classification is adequately justified under the applicable standard of scrutiny?. The parties are directed to serve and file simultaneous letter briefs on or before October 25, 2023. Amici curiae may serve and file letter briefs on or before that date. The briefs are not to exceed 10 pages. The parties may serve and file reply briefs, subject to the same page limit, within five court days after the initial supplemental brief that is or could have been timely filed under this or any subsequent order of this court. No extension of time for the filing of these briefs is contemplated. | |
| 10/2/2023 | Response to amicus curiae brief filed. Defendant and Appellant: Tony Hardin. Attorney: Adeel Mohammadi. Attorney: Heidi L. Rummel. | |
| 9/26/2023 | Order filed. The application for relief from default filed by counsel for amicus curiae, Amicus Populi to file the untimely amicus curiae brief on September 25, 2023, is hereby denied. | |
| 9/25/2023 | Application for relief from default filed. Mitchell Keiter, counsel for amicus curiae, Amicus Populi submitted an application for relief from default to file an application for permission to file an amicus curiae brief. | |
| 9/11/2023 | Oral argument letter sent. Dear Counsel:. Please be advised that the court could set this case for argument within the next few months. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Administrative Order No. 2023-05-11, the Supreme Court has resumed in-person oral argument sessions. Counsel also have the option to appear remotely via video. Please consult the administrative order for additional relevant information and requirements. Schedules showing upcoming oral argument dates can be found at https://supreme.courts.ca.gov by clicking on "Oral Arguments Calendar," and then accessing the "Oral Argument Calendar Dates" documents. Any counsel who believes good cause exists to avoid scheduling oral argument for a particular date (including counsel who, before receiving this letter, have previously asked to avoid certain dates) should inform the court within 7 calendar days from the date of this letter with a detailed explanation for such cause. Thereafter, counsel must immediately update the court on an ongoing basis as additional conflicts constituting good cause may arise. Examples of conflicts previously found to constitute good cause to avoid scheduling argument on any particular date include significant health-related issues; prepaid and nonrefundable travel arrangements booked in advance of the court's notification regarding oral argument; and significant family events such as weddings. Examples of conflicts previously found not to constitute good cause include scheduled trial and hearing dates in lower courts; conflicting professional seminars, meetings, or conventions; and planned significant family events that do not conflict with the actual dates on which argument might be held. Once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Immediately upon filing of the calendar setting this case for argument, the court will send counsel an email communication with (1) a copy of that document; (2) an appearance form, upon which counsel must provide the names of the attorney or attorneys who will present argument and indicate if they elect to appear remotely, along with further instructions governing any request to divide argument time; and (3) a general notice regarding appearance for oral argument before the court. If a party wishes to bring to the court's attention new authorities, new legislation, or other matters that were not available in time to be included in the party's brief on the merits, the party must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 8.630(d) and 8.520(d). Sincerely,. JORGE E. NAVARRETE. Clerk and. Executive Officer of the Supreme Court. | |
| 9/1/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Santa Clara County District Attorney. Attorney: David R. Boyd. | |
| 9/1/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of Santa Clara County District Attorney for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 9/1/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Catherine M. Grosso. Attorney: Michael Laurence. | |
| 9/1/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of Catherine M. Grosso for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 9/1/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Prosecutors Alliance of California. Attorney: Patrick J. Fuster. | |
| 9/1/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of Prosecutors Alliance of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of neither party is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 9/1/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: ACLU. Attorney: Avram Frey. Amicus curiae: ACLU of Northern California. Attorney: Avram Frey. Amicus curiae: ACLU of Southern California. Attorney: Avram Frey. Amicus curiae: California Public Defenders Association. Attorney: Avram Frey. Amicus curiae: Contra Costa Public Defender Office. Attorney: Avram Frey. | |
| 9/1/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, California Public Defenders Association, and Contra Costa Public Defender Office for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 9/1/2023 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted. The application of Kimberly Saltz for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of amicus curiae ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, California Public Defenders Association, and Contra Costa Public Defender Office is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. By David R. Boyd, counsel for amicus curiae Santa Clara County District Attorney in support of respondent.(Application contained within brief.). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. By Michael Laurence, counsel for amicus curiae Catherine M. Grosso in support of appellant.(Application contained within brief.). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. By Patrick J. Fuster, counsel for amicus curiae Prosecutors Alliance of California in support of neither party.(Application contained within brief.). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. By Avram Frey, counsel for amicus curiae ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, California Public Defenders Association, and Contra Costa Public Defender Office in support of appellant.(Application contained within brief.). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case). Application of Kimberly Saltz to appear as counsel pro hac vice for amicus curiae ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, California Public Defenders Association, and Contra Costa Public Defender Office in support of appellant. | |
| 9/1/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Attorney: Kymberlee C. Stapleton. | |
| 9/1/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Kymberlee C. Stapleton, Counsel for amicus curiae the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, seeking permission to file amicus curiae brief in support of respondent. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: District Attorney of the County of San Bernardino. Attorney: Brent J. Schultze. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of District Attorney of the County of San Bernardino for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted. The application of Marsha L. Levick for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of Neuroscience, Psychology and Juvenile Justice Scholars and Nonprofits is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted. The application of Adam S. Gershenson for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of Neuroscience, Psychology and Juvenile Justice Scholars and Nonprofits is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Jeffrey Aaron. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Apryl Alexander. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Jeffrey Arnett. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Arielle Baskin-Sommers. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Sara Boyd. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: B. J. Casey. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Hayley Cleary. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Alexandra Cohen. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Judith Edersheim. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Adriana Galván. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Catherine Hartley. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Luke Hyde. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Catherine Insel. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Daniel Keating. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Robert Kinscherff. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Grace Mucci. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Ashley Nellis. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Cecil Reynolds. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Joseph Ryan. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Elizabeth Shulman. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Jennifer Silvers. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Leah Somerville. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Elizabeth Sowell. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Juvenile Law Center. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: American Academy of Pediatric Neuropsychology. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: Pacific Juvenile Defender Center. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. Amicus curiae: The Sentencing Project. Attorney: Kathleen R. Hartnett. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of Neuroscience, Psychology and Juvenile Justice Scholars and Nonprofits for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Brent J. Schultze, counsel for District Attorney of the County of San Bernardino seeking permission to file amicus curiae brief in support of respondent. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case). Application of Marsha L. Levick to appear as counsel pro hac vice for amicus curiae Neuroscience, Psychology and Juvenile Justice Scholars and Nonprofits in support of appellant. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case). Application of Adam S. Gershenson to appear as counsel pro hac vice for amicus curiae Neuroscience, Psychology and Juvenile Justice Scholars and Nonprofits in support of appellant. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Santa Clara County Independent Defense Counsel Office. Attorney: Brian C. McComas. Attorney: Eric Weaver. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of Santa Clara County Independent Defense Counsel Office for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Amicus curiae brief filed. Amicus curiae: Human Rights Watch. Attorney: Gregory Wolff. Amicus curiae: Loni Hancock. Attorney: Gregory Wolff. Amicus curiae: The Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Attorney: Gregory Wolff. Amicus curiae: The LWOP Alliance Group. Attorney: Gregory Wolff. Amicus curiae: The National Life Without Parole Leadership Council. Attorney: Gregory Wolff. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted. The application of Human Rights Watch, Loni Hancock, the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, the LWOP Alliance Group and the National Life without Parole Leadership Council for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).). | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Kathleen R. Hartnett, counsel for amicus curiae, Jeffrey Aaron, Apryl Alexander, Jeffrey Arnett, Arielle Baskin-Sommers, Sara Boyd, B.J. Casey, Hayley Cleary, Alexandra Cohen, Judith Edersheim, Adriana Galván, Catherine Hartley, Luke Hyde, Catherine Insel, Daniel Keating, Robert Kinscherff, Grace Mucci, Ashley Nellis, Cecil Reynolds, Joseph Ryan, Elizabeth Shulman, Jennifer Silvers, Leah Somerville, Elizabeth Sowell, Juvenile Law Center, American Academy of Pediatric Neuropsychology, Pacific Juvenile Defender Center and The Sentencing Project seeking permission to file amicus curiae brief in support of appellant. | |
| 8/31/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Brian C. McComas and Eric Weaver, counsels for amicus curiae, Santa Clara County Independent Defense Counsel Office, seeking permission to file amicus Curiae brief in support of appellant. | |
| 8/30/2023 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed. Greg Wolff, counsel for amicus curiae Human Rights Watch, Loni Hancock, the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, the LWOP Alliance Group and the National Life without Parole Leadership Council submitted an application for permission to file amicus curiae brief. | |
| 8/25/2023 | Extension of time denied. The application filed by counsel for amicus curiae Amicus Populi requesting an extension of time to file the amicus curiae brief in support of respondent on August 25, 2023, is hereby denied. | |
| 8/25/2023 | Application for extension of time filed. Mitchell Keiter, counsel for amicus curiae Amicus Populi seeks an extension of time 29 days to September 29, 2023 to file amicus curiae brief in support of respondent. | |
| 8/1/2023 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed). Plaintiff and Respondent: The People. Attorney: Helen H. Hong. Reply brief filed (case fully briefed). Due on 08/02/2023 By 30 Day(s). | |
| 6/27/2023 | Extension of time granted. On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including August 2, 2023. No further extensions of time are contemplated. | |
| 6/26/2023 | Application for extension of time filed. Respondent requests an extension of 30 days to August 2, 2023, to file the reply brief on the merits. | |
| 6/12/2023 | Answer brief on the merits filed. Defendant and Appellant: Tony Hardin. Attorney: Heidi L. Rummel. Attorney: Sara A. McDermott. Answer brief on the merits filed. Due on 05/12/2023 By 30 Day(s). Answer brief on the merits filed. Due on 06/12/2023 By 31 Day(s). | |
| 5/19/2023 | Extension of time granted. On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including. June 12, 2023. No further extensions of time are contemplated. | |
| 5/11/2023 | Application for extension of time filed. William D. Temko, counsel for appellant seeking a second extension of time 31 days to June 12, 2023, to file answer brief on the merits. | |
| 4/19/2023 | Extension of time granted. On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including May 12, 2023. | |
| 4/7/2023 | Application for extension of time filed. William D. Temko, counsel for appellant seeks an extension of time 30 days to May 12, 2023, to file answer brief on the merits. | |
| 3/13/2023 | Opening brief on the merits filed. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People. Attorney: Helen H. Hong. Opening brief on the merits filed. Due on 03/13/2023 By 31 Day(s). | |
| 2/8/2023 | Extension of time granted. On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including March 13, 2023. | |
| 2/3/2023 | Application for extension of time filed. Helen H. Hong, counsel for respondent seeks an extension of time 31 days to March 13, 2023, to file opening brief on the merits. | |
| 1/27/2023 | Notice of substitution of counsel. Defendant and Appellant Tony Hardin hereby substitutes William D. Temko, Sara A. McDermott, and Adeel Mohammadi and the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP; and Heidi Rummel and the USC Post-Conviction Justice Project in place of William L. Heyman as his counsel in this matter.** Appellant has retained counsel. **. | |
| 1/11/2023 | Petition for review granted. The petition for review is granted. Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 84 Cal.App.5th 273, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3,) Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.). Votes: Guerrero, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Evans, JJ. | |
| 12/19/2022 | Answer to petition for review filed. Defendant and Appellant: Tony Hardin. Attorney: William L. Heyman. | |
| 11/28/2022 | Received Court of Appeal record | |
| 11/28/2022 | Record requested | |
| 11/28/2022 | Petition for review filed. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People. Attorney: Nima Razfar. |
