The majority opinion by Justice Gilbert says relatively nice things about the concurrence. To wit, it says: "We are sympathetic to the views expressed by our colleague Justice Yegan in his well-reasoned concurring opinion."
In turn, Justice Yegan is somewhat sympathetic to -- and complies with -- his duty to follow controlling California Supreme Court precedent.
But Justice Yegan isn't shy about expressing his opinion on the matter. Saying, in part: "I concur under compulsion of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong). The Court of Appeal is bound to apply the holdings of the California Supreme Court. . . . I reserve my right First Amendment right to express disagreement. (People v. Musante (l980) 102 Cal.App.3d 156, 159, conc. opn. of Gardner, P.J. [“I fully recognize that under the doctrine of stare decisis, I must follow the rulings of the Supreme Court, and if that court wishes to jump off of a figurative Pali, I, lemming-like, must leap right after it. However, I reserve my First Amendment right to kick and scream on my way down to the rocks below”]; see also Witkin, Manual on Appellate Court Opinions (1977) at pp. 168- 169 [just because the Court of Appeal is bound does not mean it is gagged].)"
Everyone gets to say what they think. That's one of the great things about America.
Even if you're on the Court of Appeal.
