Com For Medication Fax Request Forms: Fill & Download for Free

The State is not obviously ignoring the law. This took me five minutes to find on my own:Docket (Register of Actions)BRIGGS v. BROWN (CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY)Case Number S238309Date 11/09/2016Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition with request for stay filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn11/09/2016Retained for consideration (mandate/prohibition)11/16/2016Received:Amended proof of service for petition for writ of mandate. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel11/16/2016Received:Original verification for petition for writ of mandate. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel11/16/2016Order filedBecause the petition for extraordinary relief in Briggs and Van de Kamp v. Brown et al. (S238309), filed on November 9, 2016, names the Judicial Council of California as a party, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, as Chair of the Judicial Council, and Associate Justice Ming Chin, as Vice-Chair of the Judicial Council, are disqualified from participating in the matter under Canon 3E(5)(e)(i) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, and are hereby recused.11/17/2016Application for stay deniedThe court is in receipt of the petition for extraordinary relief and request for immediate stay or injunctive relief filed by petitioners Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp on November 9, 2016. To the extent petitioners seek to stay any action by the Secretary of State to certify the election results with respect to Proposition 66 on the November 8, 2016 ballot, that stay request is denied. The request for a stay of enforcement of Proposition 66 before the election results are certified (Elec. Code § 15501, subd. (b)), is denied as unnecessary. Petitioners may renew their motion for a stay or other relief if and when the certified results establish that Proposition 66 has been approved by the voters. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.11/17/2016Note:12/19/2016Motion filedMotion for Leave to File Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief and [Proposed] Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel12/19/2016Received:Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief. Immediate Stay or Injunctive Relief Requested Preventing Enforcement of Proposition 66 Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel12/19/2016Exhibit(s) lodgedPetitioners' Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Amended and Renewed Petition for Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Stay or Injunctive Relief.12/19/2016Received:Petitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate. Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel12/20/2016Stay order filedPetitioners' "Motion for Leave to File Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, " filed on December 19, 2016, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the "Amended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, " and "Petitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, " received on December 19, 2016. In order to provide time for further consideration of the amended petition for writ of mandate and to permit the filing and consideration of papers in opposition to the petition, the implementation of all provisions of Proposition 66, approved by the voters on November 8, 2016, as certified by the Secretary of State on December 16, 2016, is hereby stayed. Respondents must serve and file their preliminary oppositions to the petition no later than January 9, 2017. Petitioners may serve and file a reply to the oppositions no later than January 23, 2017. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.12/20/2016Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition with request for stay filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnAmended and Renewed Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief. Immediate Stay or Injunctive Relief Requested Preventing Enforcement of Proposition 6612/20/2016Request for judicial notice filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate12/20/2016Note:12/20/2016 order faxed to all parties01/09/2017Motion filedMotion to Intervene in Opposition to Petitioners' Petition Seeking Relief to Prevent Enforcement of Proposition 66. Declarations of Charles H. Bell, Kermit Alexander, McGregor W. Scott in Support of Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel.01/09/2017Received:Complaint in Intervention in Opposition to the Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandate. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel.01/09/2017Order filedGood cause appearing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.68, the time in which to respond to the "Motion to Intervene in Opposition, " filed by Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 on January 9, 2017, is shortened. Oppositions to the motion, if any, must be served and filed no later than 10 a.m. on January 13, 2017. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J. and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.01/09/2017Note:Jan. 9, 2017 order faxed to all parties.01/09/2017Preliminary opposition to writ petition filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Kathleen A. KenealyAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda01/09/2017Preliminary opposition to writ petition filedRespondent: Judicial Council of CaliforniaAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda01/09/2017Received:Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and (Proposed) Brief of Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Petition for Extraordinary Relief. By: David P. Mastagni, counsel for amicus curiae Peace Officers Research Association of California.01/09/2017Received:Application for Permission to File Amicus Curiae Brief (And Brief) in Support of Respondents Jerry Brown, Governor of California, Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California, California's Judicial Council, and Does I-XX. By: Michele Hanisee, counsel for amicus curiae Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other Associations Representing Deputy District Attorneys.01/10/2017Received:Preliminary Opposition of Intervenor Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No On Prop. 62, Yes on Prop.66 to the Petition for Extraordinary Relief. By: Kent S. Scheidegger, Counsel01/10/2017Received:Intervenor's Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate. By: Kent S. Scheidegger, counsel for Intervenors Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66.01/12/2017Opposition filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn(Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene)01/17/2017Received:Intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Supplemental Declaration of Charles H. Bell, Jr. in Support of Proposed Intervener's Reply. Intervener's Exhibits in Support of Charles H. Bell, Jr.'s Declaration. NOTE: (Court awaiting Application for Leave to File Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene)01/18/2017Application filedFor leave to File Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Motion to InterveneCalifornians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel.01/23/2017Reply to preliminary opposition filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn02/01/2017Order to show cause issuedThe court on its own motion substitutes Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General, as respondent in place of Kamala Harris, in her official capacity as former Attorney General. The "Application for Leave to File Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 387(a), " filed on January 18, 2017, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the reply, the supplemental declaration of Charles H. Bell, and the appendix of exhibits, all received on January 17, 2017. The "Motion to Intervene in Opposition to Petitioner's Petition Seeking Relief to Prevent Enforcement of Proposition 66, " filed by Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 on January 9, 2017, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the declarations in support of the motion and the "Complaint in Intervention in Opposition to the Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandate, " all received on January 9, 2017, and the "Preliminary Opposition of Intervenor Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 to the Petition for Extraordinary Relief, " and "Intervenor's Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, " both received on January 10, 2017. Petitioners' "Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, " filed on December 20, 2016, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the "Petitioner's Appendix of Exhibits, " received on December 20, 2016. Intervenor's "Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, " filed on January 13, 2017, is granted. Jerry Brown, Governor of the State of California, Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, and the Judicial Council of California are ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted. The implementation of all provisions of Proposition 66 is hereby stayed pending the court's decision in this matter. (People ex rel. S.F. Bay etc. Com. v. Town of Emeryville (1968) 69 Cal.2d 533, 537.) Respondents' and Intervenor's returns must be served and filed on or before February 27, 2017. Petitioners may serve and file a reply to the returns on or before March 20, 2017. Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, must be served and filed on or before March 30, 2017. Any reply to an amicus brief must be served and filed on or before April 6, 2017. The court does not anticipate granting any extensions of time regarding the due dates set forth above. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin , J., were recused and did not participate. Votes: Corrigan, A.C.J., Werdegar, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger, JJ.02/01/2017Filed:Intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order)02/01/2017Filed:Supplemental Declaration of Charles H. Bell, Jr. in Support of the Proposed intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order)02/01/2017Filed:Interveners' Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Charles H. Bell, Jr.'s Declaration in Support of the Proposed Intervener's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Terry J. Martin, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order)02/01/2017Filed:Complaint in Intervention in Opposition to the Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandate. Declaration of Charles H. Bell, Jr. in Support of Motion to Intervene. Declaration of Kermit Alexander in Support of Motion to Intervene. Declaration of McGregor W. Scott in Support of Motion to Intervene. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order.)02/01/2017Filed:Preliminary Opposition of Intervenor Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty-No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 to the Petition for Extraordinary Relief. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Interveners. Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel. (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order.)02/01/2017Request for judicial notice filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger(Intervenor's Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate.) (See Feb. 1, 2017 Order.)02/02/2017Order filedThe order filed on February 1, 2017, is hereby amended in part as follows. Paragraph Four is amended to read in its entirety: Petitioners' "Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, " filed on December 20, 2016, is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the "Petitioner's Appendix of Exhibits, " lodged on December 19, 2016. Paragraph Five is amended to read in its entirety: Intervenor's "Motion for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate" is granted. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., are recused and did not participate.02/27/2017Written return filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda02/27/2017Written return filedRespondent: Judicial Council of CaliforniaAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda03/01/2017Received:Intervenor's Return to Order to Show Cause Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener Charles H. Bell, Retained counsel (Untimely; to court for permission to file.)03/01/2017Written return filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Charles H. Bell(Filed With Permission)03/20/2017Request for extension of time filedTo File Replies to Amicus BriefsCalifornians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel03/20/2017Traverse filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn"Further Reply in Support of Petition for Extraordinary Relief."03/20/2017Received:Motion for Judicial Notice John Van de Kamp, Petitioner Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel (Missing Proof of Service)03/21/2017Received:Proof of Service for Petitioner's Motion for Judicial Notice03/21/2017Request for judicial notice filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe RayburnPetitioner: John Van de KampAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn03/22/2017Extension of time deniedThe application of interveners filed on March 20, 2017, for an extension of time to file replies to amicus briefs, is denied. Please be advised that the provisions of rule 8.25(b)(3) of California Rules of Court do not apply. (See California Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(4).)03/27/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed1) By Michelle Hribar, counsel for amicus curiae Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed2) By Justin Dela Cruz, counsel for amicus curiae California Correctional Peace Officers Association, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed3) By Mark Zahner, counsel for amicus curiae California District Attorneys Association, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed4) By Theano Evangelis, counsel for Constitutional Law, in support of petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed5) By Brett J. Williamson, counsel for amici curiae The Innocence Network, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, and American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, in support of petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed6) By Michael Hersek, counsel for amicus curiae Habeas Corpus Resource Center, in support of petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Filed:Letter, dated March 24, 2017, from Ms. Von der Ahe Rayburn, counsel for petitioners, informing the court of the death of petitioner John Van de Kamp.03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed7) By Robert Sanger, counsel for amicus curiae California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and Thomas Speedy Rice for amicus curiae Death Penalty Focus, in support petitioners. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed8) By Nina Besselman, counsel for amicus curiae Crime Victims United of California, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed9) Offices of the Federal Public Defenders for the Central and Eastern Districts of California, in support of petitioners. (Brief under separate cover.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed10) Orange County District Attorney, in support of respondents and intervener. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filed11) By Michele Hanisee, counsel for Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other Associations, in support of respondents. (Application contained within brief.)03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and Death Penalty Focus for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California Attorneys for Criminal JusticeAttorney: Robert M. SangerAmicus curiae: Death Penalty Focus03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers AssociationAttorney: Dennis J. Hayes03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Crime Victims United of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Crime Victims United of CaliforniaAttorney: Nina S. Ashford03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California Correctional Peace Officers Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Offices of the Federal Public Defenders for the Central and Eastern Districts of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Offices of the Federal Public Defenders for the Central and Eastern Districts of CaliforniaAttorney: Hilary Lee Potashner03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Constitutional Law for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Constitutional LawAttorney: Theano Diana Kapur Evangelis03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of The Innocence Network, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, and American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Innocence NetworkAttorney: Brett Johnston WilliamsonAmicus curiae: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern CaliforniaAmicus curiae: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern CaliforniaAmicus curiae: American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Habeas Corpus Resource Center for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Habeas Corpus Resource CenterAttorney: Michael J. Hersek03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California Correctional Peace Officers AssociationAttorney: Justin Christopher Delacruz03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other Associations Representing Deputy District Attorneys for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, and Nine Other AssociationsAttorney: Michele A. Hanisee03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California District Attorneys Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California District Attorneys AssociationAttorney: Mark Louis Zahner03/30/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Orange County District Attorney for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents and intervener is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)03/30/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Orange County District AttorneyAttorney: Holly Marie Woesner04/03/2017Application to file amicus curiae brief filedBy Patrick J. Whalen, counsel for amicus curiae California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Offices in State Employment (CASE), in support of neither party. (Application contained within brief) (Filed pursuant to CRC 8.25(b))04/03/2017Order filedThe above entitled matter is retitled as follows: RON BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc. et al., Respondents; CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT TO END THE DEATH PENALTY, etc., Intervener.04/03/2017Received:Letter received, dated March 24, 2017 from Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn, counsel for Petitioners informing the Court that Petitioner John Van de Kamp has passed away; March 14, 2017.(Duplicate. Refer to line 730)04/06/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)04/06/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE)Attorney: Patrick J. Whalen04/06/2017Response to amicus curiae brief filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda04/06/2017Response to amicus curiae brief filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn04/06/2017Response to amicus curiae brief filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger04/13/2017Justice pro tempore assignedHon. Raymond J. Ikola Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three04/13/2017Justice pro tempore assignedHon. Andrea L. Hoch Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District05/08/2017Oral argument letter sentDear Counsel: Please be advised that the court could set this case for argument within the next few months. Schedules showing the court's oral argument dates and locations for the next twelve months can be found at Supreme Court - supreme_court by clicking on "calendars, " 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 of receiving 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 marriage. 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 sheet, upon which counsel must provide the names of the attorney or attorneys who will present argument, 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).05/17/2017Case ordered on calendarTo be argued on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in Los Angeles.05/18/2017Case ordered on calendarTo be argued on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in Los Angeles. ** First amended calendar issued this date. Please note that People v. Page (Timothy Wayne), S230793 is to be called and continued to the September 2017 calendar.05/22/2017Application filedLetter, dated May 19, 2017, from Isaac Stevens, counsel for Amicus Curiae Peace Officers Research Association of California, requesting Court to consider PORAC's application for leave to file amicus brief and proposed amicus brief submitted January 9, 2017.05/23/2017Application filedApplication to divide oral argument time. Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener, Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff Xavier Becerra, Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff Kathleen A. Kenealy, Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff Judicial Council of California, Respondent Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, AG staff05/24/2017Permission to file amicus curiae brief grantedThe application of Peace Officers Research Association of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)05/24/2017Amicus curiae brief filedAmicus curiae: Peace Officers Research Association of CaliforniaAttorney: Isaac Sean Stevens05/24/2017Order filedThe request of counsel for respondents in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of respondents at oral argument is hereby granted. The request of respondents to allocate to Jose A. Zelidon-Zepeda 20 minutes and Kent S. Scheidegger 10 minutes of respondents' 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted.06/01/2017Filed:"Petitioner's Corrected Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Further Reply in Support of Petition for Extraordinary Relief" Ron Briggs, Petitioner Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn, Retained counsel06/01/2017Request for judicial notice grantedThe request for judicial notice, filed on March 21, 2017, is granted.06/06/2017Cause argued and submitted06/09/2017Supplemental briefing orderedThe court requests that the parties serve and file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: Whether the authorization of an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of a superior court on an initial capital habeas corpus petition (Pen. Code, § 1509.1, subd. (a)) conflicts with the grant of appellate jurisdiction to this court "when judgment of death has been pronounced" (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); see id., § 12, subd. (d)). Amici curiae that have filed briefs in this matter may also file supplemental briefs addressing the above question if they so choose. All initial briefs addressing the above question must be served and filed simultaneously on or before June 19, 2017. Any reply to the supplemental briefs must be served and filed on or before June 29, 2017. Counsel shall submit all supplemental briefs by e-mail to [email protected], attaching the document as a PDF, followed by service and filing of hard copies. No extensions will be granted. The cause remains submitted as of June 7, 2017. Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., and Chin, J., were recused and did not participate.06/12/2017Order filedThe order filed on June 9, 2017, ordering supplemental briefing is amended in part as follows. Paragraph Two is amended as to the last sentence to read: The cause remains submitted as of June 6, 2017.06/14/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers AssociationAttorney: Dennis J. HayesAttorney: Michelle Christina HribarBy Amicus Curiae Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.06/16/2017Note: Mail returned and re-sentSupplemental briefing order to Stephen Kerr Dunkle, Counsel for Death Penalty Focus, Amicus curiae06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: California Attorneys for Criminal JusticeAttorney: Robert M. SangerAmicus curiae: Death Penalty FocusAttorney: Robert M. Sanger06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Constitutional LawAttorney: Theano Diana Kapur Evangelis06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda06/19/2017Supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Peace Officers Research Association of CaliforniaAttorney: David P. Mastagni06/20/2017Change of contact information filed for:Stephen Dunkle from 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite 102 to 125 East De La Guerra,06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger06/29/2017Received:Supplemental Letter Brief of Amicus Curiae Habeas Corpus Resource Center.06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedAmicus curiae: Peace Officers Research Association of CaliforniaAttorney: David P. Mastagni06/29/2017Reply to supplemental brief filedRespondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-ZepedaRespondent: Xavier BecerraAttorney: Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda08/23/2017Notice of forthcoming opinion postedTo be filed on Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.08/23/2017Order filedThe order filed on April 3, 2017 amending the order title is corrected as follows: RON BRIGGS, Petitioner, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc. et al., Respondents; CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY, etc., Intervener.08/24/2017Opinion filedWe discharge the order to show cause, and deny the amended and renewed petition for a writ of mandate and injunctive relief. Majority Opinion by Corrigan, A. C. J. -- joined by Werdegar, Liu, Kruger, and Hoch*, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Liu, J. -- joined by Werdegar, Kruger, and Hoch*, JJ. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Cuéllar, J. -- joined by Ikola**, J. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. ** Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.09/08/2017Rehearing petition filedPetitioner: Ron BriggsAttorney: Christina Marie Von Der Ahe Rayburn09/11/2017Time extended to consider modification or rehearingThe time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case is hereby extended to and including November 22, 2017, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first.09/18/2017Motion filedCalifornians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66, Intervener Kent S. Scheidegger, Retained counsel09/18/2017Answer to rehearing petition filedIntervener: Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty - No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66Attorney: Kent S. Scheidegger10/25/2017Rehearing denied; opinion modifiedORDER MODIFYING OPINION, DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY STAY FILED BY INTERVENER CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY THE COURT: The opinion in this matter filed August 24, 2017, and appearing at 3 Cal.5th 808, is modified as follows: On page 826 of the opinion, the sentence reading, "Physicians and other licensed health care professionals are protected against disciplinary proceedings for any actions authorized by statute" is modified to read, "Physicians and other licensed health care professionals are protected against disciplinary proceedings for any actions authorized by section 3604.3." On page 829 of the opinion, the phrase that reads "which provided for (1) postindictment preliminary hearings" is modified to read "which provided for (1) abolition of the right to postindictment preliminary hearings." These modifications do not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. Pursuant to this court's order of September 11, 2017, extending the time for granting or denying rehearing, the decision in this matter is now final. The Motion to Vacate or Modify Stay filed by intervener Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty is denied as moot.10/25/2017Letter sent to counsel: opinion now final