The People v. W.M. et al.

HearingDescription: Remittitur issued.; Notes: S279584

DocketDescription: Received copy of Supreme Court filing.; Notes: Request for publication filed (initial case entry)

DocketDescription: Order denying publication filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT: Since this court's March 29, 2023, opinion does not meet the standard for publication as set forth in rule 8.1105(c) of the California Rules of Court, the request for publication is denied. Pursuant to rule 8.1120(b) of the California Rules of Court, the Clerk is directed to forward to the Clerk of the Supreme Court the request for publication, the opinion, and a copy of this order.

DocketDescription: Filed request to publish opinion.; Notes: The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel and California State Association of Counties by Benjamin Shatz of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

DispositionDescription: Remanded to trial court with directions; Disposition Type: Final The juvenile court's order is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions to the court to determine whether the City has presented good cause for accessing W.M.'s juvenile case file, and if so, to conduct an in camera review of the case file to determine whether documents relevant to the issues raised in the City's section 827 petition exist. If such documents exist, the court must balance the interests of W.M., the City, and the public to determine whether such documents should be disclosed and the appropriate scope of any such disclosure.; Publication Status: Signed Unpublished; Author: Rodriguez, Victor A.; Participants: Petrou, Ioana (Concur) Tucher, Alison M. (Concur)

DocketDescription: Opinion filed.; Notes: (Signed Unpublished) The juvenile court's order is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions to the court to determine whether the City has presented good cause for accessing W.M.'s juvenile case file, and if so, to conduct an in camera review of the case file to determine whether documents relevant to the issues raised in the City's section 827 petition exist. If such documents exist, the court must balance the interests of W.M., the City, and the public to determine whether such documents should be disclosed and the appropriate scope of any such disclosure.

DocketDescription: Cause argued and submitted.; Notes: J. Bradley O'Connell for amicus and Matthew Slentz for RPI.

DocketDescription: Request for oral argument filed by:; Notes: After tentative opinion by amicus

DocketDescription: Issued tentative opinion or disputed issued memo

DocketDescription: Letter sent to counsel re:; Notes: NOTICE OF TENTATIVE OPINION A166116 - In re W.M. This case is scheduled for oral argument on the court's March 29, 2023 calendar. The court is distributing the attached tentative opinion to the parties before the argument. The court believes the record and briefs satisfactorily present the facts and the controlling legal authority, and it is prepared to rule along the lines set forth in the tentative opinion. If a party that requested argument previously notifies the court, opposing counsel, and any unrepresented parties in writing by noon on Monday, March 13, 2023, that they still wish to proceed with oral argument, oral argument will take place as scheduled and the views expressed in the tentative opinion will be subject to change. If no such notification is given, oral argument will not be held, and the court's final opinion will reflect the substance of the tentative opinion. Very truly yours, Charles D. Johnson Clerk/Administrator By: _____________, Deputy Clerk

DocketDescription: Opposition filed.; Notes: RESPONSE OF AMICUS CURIAE FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT TO MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING AND FOR CALENDAR PREFERENCE

DocketDescription: Counsel appointment order filed.; Notes: J. Bradley O'Connell for Amicus Curiae Brief

DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: The court has reviewed the record that has been filed and is concerned that there appears to be no party who will represent the interests of respondent or, more generally, of individuals who have had cases in the juvenile justice system. The court views this case as potentially significant, and it wants to ensure that all relevant issues are vetted fully. Therefore, the court orders the First District Appellate Project (FDAP) to select and recommend appropriate counsel who can assist the court as amicus curiae. (Cf. United States v. Windsor (2013) 570 U.S. 744, 755.) Appellant the City of Vallejo has filed a motion for calendar preference. Opposition to that motion is currently due on or before November 1, 2022. The court now extends that deadline to November 14, 2022, and asks FDAP to take whatever steps are necessary to appoint counsel who can meet that extended deadline.

DocketDescription: Received copy of:; Notes: Letter from FDAP regarding discretionary appointment for minor.

DocketDescription: Motion filed.; Notes: Motion to expedite briefing and for calendar prference; memorandum in support; declaration of Andrew C. Rawcliffe; and proposed order.

DocketDescription: Letter sent to counsel re:; Notes: Record Filed AOB Due in 40 Days

DocketDescription: Record on appeal filed.; Notes: do not provide this record to anyone

DocketDescription: Received copy of:; Notes: Civil Case Information Statement in a Juvenile Criminal Case

DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received (criminal).; Notes: Filed on 9/12/22 by City of Vallejo seeking minor W.M.'s records

DocketTrial Court Name: Solano County Superior Court - Main; County: Solano; Trial Court Case Number: J40937; Trial Court Judge: Davis, Terrye