4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/09/02 Morning Session - Sep 02, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/09/02 Morning Session

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two 2h 24m 7 chapters transcribed 21 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of this oral argument and who are the parties involved?

Unknown 0:00

I mean It might be close enough. But yes, you turn it off. So Right. Right. They can keep for some. Or just want them to be what you could do. Yeah.

Unknown 5:32

All right.

Unknown 5:41

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated.

Justice Codrington 5:58

Welcome to Oral Argument today in the fourth district, division two. It's my great pleasure to introduce you to my colleagues on this panel. Um first let me introduce you to Justice Richard Fields.

Justice Corey Lee 6:12

Morning.

Justice Codrington 6:13

And this is Frank Menatres.

Justice Frank Menetrez 6:15

Good morning.

Justice Codrington 6:17

Again, my name is Justice Codrington. I will be presiding over the this panel. Where are several cases on this panel today, six to be completed and we will start immediately with number fourteen. When I call your case, please come forward and state your appearances for the benefit of the clerk. following Number fourteen EO eight five zero zero three The People vs. Travis Merritt.

Stephen Lubliner 6:48

Morning, Your Honor Stephen Lubliner, on behalf of appellant Travis Merritt.

Justice Codrington 6:53

Did you say Hebrew?

Stephen Lubliner 6:55

Stephen Lugliner on behalf of appellant Travis Merritt.

Justice Codrington 7:03

Thank you. And for respondents,

Kayleigh Oettlng 7:06

good morning, Kayleigh Audding on behalf of

Justice Codrington 7:10

Can you spell your name, please?

Kayleigh Oettlng 7:11

Sure. O E T T L N G.

Justice Corey Lee 7:15

Any relations? Shop too, Mr. Right. Did we see you often?

Justice Codrington 7:21

Well, welcome to the court, both of you. Um to the uh appellate you have the privilege of opening closing and you have fifteen minutes on In total, how would you like to how much time would you like to reserve for rebuttal?

Stephen Lubliner 7:37

I'd like to reserve two minutes, please.

Justice Codrington 7:39

Thanks. And when that time comes you will receive a audible announcement from the clerk. Has everyone received the opinion, the tentative opinion in this case?

Stephen Lubliner 7:51

Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Codrington 7:53

Okay. You may proceed, counsel.

Stephen Lubliner 7:57

Uh thank you, Your Honor. Uh my intention is to focus on the adec uh the issue of the advisements of the prior conviction allegations. I was curious as to what prompted the court initially to order oral argument, then change its mind. So if the court had any concerns about the two Romero issues, I raised um I would speak on those as well.

Justice Codrington 8:20

not hearing any questions regarding that from my colleagues, so you can just proceed with what you would like to bring to our attention.

Stephen Lubliner 8:27

All right. Well honour

Justice Frank Menetrez 8:28

just as far as your question about the change in the notices, it was a quirk of our court's internal processes. It's Uh Yeah, that's about all I can say. It was um there's really nothing to shed any light on the uh the panel's views of tensitive opinion. Um Yeah, that's about all I could say.

Stephen Lubliner 8:54

All right, thank you. Um I do regarding the Romero issues, I do want to make one point slash correction, kind of an important one. Mr Merritt was s was seventeen, not nineteen, when he committed those four robberies and the two incidents that gave him the four s earliest four earliest strikes out of the one case, at least if we're to trust the people's own recitations in the Romero opposition. On page uh two seventy two of the clerk's transcript, they say that the r robberies were committed on january thirteenth, two thousand six. Mr uh Merritt was born in May nineteen eighty eight. Um the probation report which would have made him seventeen, three months shy of eighteen. The probation report does say the case resolved uh in adult court in uh May and June two thousand seven, shortly after he turned nineteen.

Stephen Lubliner 9:44

Now I think that's probably because of procedures to determine whether he was fit for juvenile treatment, which have changed since then, or transfer him to adult court and then the inevitable delays in adult court. So it was an adult disposition, but he was a minor when he committed the offenses, committed the bulk of the crimes that are putting him away for twenty five years to life. So I did want that to be clear. Turning to the advisements issue, I think this is an area of law that doesn't get a heck of a lot of respect. I have a appeal right now in a different case, it's a resentencing appeal, so I can't do anything really with the issue resentencing under eleven seventy two point seventy five.

Stephen Lubliner 10:26

Uh there was first a guilty plea and then two or three weeks later I think they were back in court going, Hey, we forgot to have him admit the priors and then the court turns to the attorney, is he gonna admit?