The Supreme Court may order review of a Court of Appeal decision:
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
If the Court of Appeal decides an appeal and denies a related petition for writ of habeas corpus without issuing an order to show cause and without formally consolidating the two proceedings, a party seeking review of both decisions must file a separate petition for review in each proceeding.
(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2009.)
(Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2020; previously amended effective January 1, 2004, January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2018.)
(Subd (g) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 2004.)
Cal. R. Ct. 8.500
Advisory Committee Comment
Subdivision (a). A party other than the petitioner who files an answer may be required to pay a filing fee under Government Code sectionif the answer is the first document filed in the proceeding in the Supreme Court by that party. See rule .
Subdivision (a)(1) makes it clear that any interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal-such as an order denying an application to appoint counsel, to augment the record, or to allow oral argument-is a "decision" that may be challenged by petition for review.
Subdivision (e). Subdivision (e)(1) provides that a petition for review must be served and filed within 10 days after the Court of Appeal decision is final in that court. Finality in the Court of Appeal is generally governed by rules(civil appeals), 8.366(b) (criminal appeals), 8.387(b) (habeas corpus proceedings), and 8.490(b) (proceedings for writs of mandate, certiorari, and prohibition). These rules declare the general rule that a Court of Appeal decision is final in that court 30 days after filing. They then carve out specific exceptions-decisions that they declare to be final immediately on filing (see rules , , and ). The plain implication is that all other Court of Appeal
orders-specifically, interlocutory orders that may be the subject of a petition for review-are not final on filing. This implication is confirmed by current practice, in which parties may be allowed to apply for- and the Courts of Appeal may grant-reconsideration of such interlocutory orders; reconsideration, of course, would be impermissible if the orders were in fact final on filing.
Contrary to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e), paragraphs (4) and (5) do not prohibit extending the time to file an answer or reply; because the subdivision thus expressly forbids an extension of time only with respect to the petition for review, by clear negative implication it permits an application to extend the time to file an answer or reply under rule.
See rulefor provisions concerning the timeliness of documents mailed by inmates or patients from custodial institutions.
Subdivision (f). The general requirements relating to service of documents in the appellate courts are established by rule. Subdivision (f)(1) requires that the petition (but not an answer or reply) be served on the clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal. To assist litigants, (f)(1) also states explicitly what is impliedly required by rule , i.e., that the petition must also be served on the superior court clerk (for delivery to the trial judge).