Summary of Opinion: People v. Frahs (S252220), 12-27-2018

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion is a short procedural order in the California Supreme Court docketed S252220 and dated December 27, 2018. Review was granted by the court on its own motion. The court limited the issues to be briefed and argued to two questions concerning Penal Code section 1001.36 and whether the court of appeal erred by remanding for a determination under that statute. The opinion notes that, for purposes of briefing and oral argument, the People are to be deemed the petitioner in this court. The requests for depublication were denied. The vote on the order is listed as Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., and Justices Chin, Corrigan, and Detjen (the latter an assigned Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does Penal Code section 1001.36 apply retroactively to all cases in which the judgment is not yet final?
2. Did the court of appeal err by remanding for a determination under Penal Code section 1001.36?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The document is an order granting review on the court's own motion and does not contain an extended legal analysis. The court limited briefing and oral argument to the two specified questions regarding the retroactivity and the court of appeal's remand under Penal Code section 1001.36. The order also (1) designates the People as the petitioner for briefing and argument purposes and (2) denies the requests for depublication. No additional reasoning or discussion of legal principles appears in the text of the order.

Holding and Implications

Review was granted on the court's own motion.

Implications and immediate effects:

• The California Supreme Court ordered further briefing and oral argument limited to whether Penal Code section 1001.36 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments and whether the court of appeal erred in remanding for a determination under that section.
• For purposes of the proceedings in this court, the People are treated as the petitioner.
• The requests for depublication of the court of appeal opinion were denied.
• The order itself does not announce a legal holding on the merits of the framed issues and does not set or discuss a new precedent.

Administrative details in the opinion: Docket number S252220; opinion date 12-27-2018; caption "PEOPLE v. FRAHS (Eric Jason)". Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Chin, Corrigan, and Detjen, JJ. (Detjen noted as an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.)