4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/03/03 Morning Session - Mar 03, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/03/03 Morning Session

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two 1h 48m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal issue in People v. Steele regarding the appealability of inmate‑initiated petitions under §1172.1?

Justice Miller 0:00

Welcome to Oral Argument on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, here in Riverside. My name is Justice Miller. This is Justice Codrington and Justice Menendrez. Good morning. We will be on the first case, and we will call People v. Steele. And if we could have counsel.

Janice Mazur 0:23

Good morning, Your Honors. This is Janice Mazur for the appellant T.J. Steele.

Justice Miller 0:27

Good morning. If I could have you spell your last name for the clerk, please.

Janice Mazur 0:31

Sure, that's M like Mary, A, Z like zebra.

Justice Miller 0:34

You are. Thank you. And counsel for respondent?

Kia Norvis 0:41

Good morning. Kia Norvis, certified legal intern under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General Jimmy Herbert for

Justice Miller 0:47

respondent. Good morning and welcome. Counsel for appellant, you may proceed.

Janice Mazur 0:54

Thank you, Your Honor.

Justice Miller 0:55

And we did receive your citations, your additional citations.

Janice Mazur 0:59

Thank you. Yeah, that's. primarily where I'm going to be focused today. As the court is aware, its decision in Faustinos, as well as several other decisions, Roy and Hodges, have held that an order declining to grant an inmate-initiated petition under Section 1172.1 is not appealable. However, subsequent to the briefing in this case, these several new cases that the court just referenced, People v. Aaliyah and People v. Craig, have held that such an order is appealable as an order affecting defendant's substantial interests if the court takes certain procedural steps which indicate that the court, in fact, considered the petition on the merits. I'd like to primarily address those cases today because I believe that the facts of our case are far closer to Aaliyah and Craig than they are to Faustinos, Hodges, and Roy.

Janice Mazur 1:56

In Aaliyah, which was decided by the 6th Appellate District, The defendant filed a petition under 1172.1. The court then appointed counsel and counsel filed a brief. People filed an opposition. And at the hearing that was attended by counsel, Superior Court said it was in possession of prison records. It released those to the parties and another hearing was scheduled, at which time the defense submitted some documents from the prison file and people filed a supplemental opposition.

Justice Miller 2:28

So can I just ask you, though, if you look at our opinion on page two, the last paragraph, the sentence says, the court read and considered the invitation and declined to take action on it. Is that

Janice Mazur 2:41

correct? I'm sorry,

Justice Miller 2:46

the court? If you look at page two.

Janice Mazur 2:50

Page two of the Craig decision?

Justice Miller 2:52

No, the current decision. No, the current opinion. Page two, the last paragraph, there's a sentence that reads, the court read and considered the invitation and declined to take action on it. Is that a correct statement?

Janice Mazur 3:07

Well, that's a correct statement. But what the court also said, Your Honor, is that it read and considered all of the documents that were considered, that were presented in conjunction with the petition.

Justice Miller 3:19

And I think it would be- court would have to do to make sure that they could not take action on it?

Janice Mazur 3:28

No, I think under the language of the statute, the court was not even required to review anything. I mean, because it's an inmate-initiated petition, the court could simply say, nope, I'm not going to look at this. And that would have been a non-appealable order. But because the court in this case specifically and expressly stated, I've received not only the petition, but the briefing and all of the exhibits, and I have read them and considered them, I think that that is far closer to what we have in Olia and in Craig, because it indicates that the court did consider the arguments and the evidence and the law and the facts particular to this defendant on the merits.

Unknown 4:12

Counsel, can you just tell me, where in the record does the court say that it read These other documents, could you just refer me to that in the record?

Janice Mazur 4:21

Sure. It's on the same one-page order. The court says, I'll read it to you if you give me just a moment.

Unknown 4:34

Oh, so I see where it says, and the accompanying documents.

Janice Mazur 4:38

Right, and the accompanying documents. The court has received, read, and considered the defendant's invitation to recall sentence and the accompanying documents.