State Supreme Court won’t order lower court to prioritize delayed cases

The California Supreme Court denied appellate attorney Jon B. Eisenberg's writ petition to order the 3rd District Court of Appeal to prioritize dozens of long-delayed criminal appeals.

The court considered the petition at its regular conference on Wednesday. Late that afternoon, it posted a statement on the docket. Eisenberg v. Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, S269691 (filed July 6, 2021).

"The petition for a writ of mandate is denied," the court wrote. "We recommend that within 180 days of this order, the Judicial Council complete an investigation of alleged delays in the Third District Court of Appeal's disposition of criminal appeals and, if appropriate, propose measures that the Judicial Council and the Court of Appeal should employ to address any problems that are identified."

Colette M. Bruggman, executive officer for the 3rd District, declined to comment. The attorney representing the district, Raymond A. Cardozo, a partner with Reed Smith LLP in San Francisco, did not respond to an email seeking comment as of press time.

"Plainly California's judicial branch is incapable of policing itself," the Healdsburg-based Eisenberg said when reached by email late Wednesday. "It remains to be seen whether the Commission on Judicial Performance is up to the task."

This is the second time the Supreme Court has rejected Eisenberg's efforts to get involved in the dispute with the 3rd District. In March, the high court denied his request to transfer delayed cases to other districts. In re: Transfer request, S267546 (filed Feb. 18, 2021). He also has a pending complaint with the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Judicial Council spokesman Cathal Conneely declined to comment, noting the agency cannot speak on any matter before the Commission on Judicial Performance. Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan recused themselves because they sit on the Judicial Council, which was a named defendant in the case.

Eisenberg filed several declarations with the court in recent weeks. These included criminal defense attorneys who said their clients have been harmed by delays and a fraud victim who wrote her efforts to win restitution have been hampered.

Also on Wednesday, the 3rd District ruled in favor of a then 17-year-old defendant in a decade old appeal. In an unpublished unanimous opinion, Associate Justice William J. Murray, Jr. wrote the defendant should not have been charged only $660 in restitution -- not $5,595 -- for "multiple acts of graffiti vandalism." People v. J.T., C069844 (Cal. App. 3rd, filed Nov. 29, 2011).

"Don't overlook the irony of this ruling and the J.T. opinion coming out on the same day," Eisenberg said.