Everyone's pretty darn blunt in this one.
When asked why she stole the car, the juvenile forthrightly said she did so "so she
can sell their parts so she can purchase drugs and food.” Points for honesty, that's for sure.
Similarly, Justice Mihara doesn't mince words when he says that he's dismissing the appeal because he thinks it's time-barred, notwithstanding an opinion from the Fourth Appellate District that holds to the contrary. It only takes him three (double-spaced) pages to say, in unvarnished language, that he thinks that the Fourth District's decision was a total crock. (Repeatedly saying, for example, that the authorities on which the Fourth District relied have "nothing to do" with the alleged issue at hand.)
Pretty forthright as well, I think.
Justice Greenwood dissents. She doesn't think that the Fourth District's opinion is a crock at all; instead, she believes it articulates the right rule.
The majority and dissenting opinions are short ones. And not the most earth-shatteringly important dispositions in the universe.
Nonetheless, given that there's now an express conflict below as to the jurisdictional timeliness bar at issue, it seems to me that the California Supreme Court should grant review in this one and clear up the conflict. Pretty easy to decide one way or the other. And that way we'll have one clear rule that practitioners (and the Court of Appeal) can follow.
