Chief Justice Guerrero emerges as frequent dissenter on state Supreme Court

Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero spent her first 21/2 years on the state Supreme Court without filing a single dissent. During the past eight months, she has written four -- two in high-profile criminal cases in which she blasted the reasoning of the court's more liberal wing.

Although the court still usually rules unanimously, Guerrero's recent dissents stand out -- not only because she has written more than any other justice in 2025, but also because of their unusually sharp critiques for a court known for its collegial tone.

"The tone is noticeable," said Joshua Patashnik, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP who joined that firm after years as a deputy solicitor general with the state attorney general's office. "She seems quite frustrated with the majority" and what she believes is "sloppy reasoning in favor of criminal defendants."

David S. Ettinger, of counsel at Horvitz & Levy LLP and primary writer of the At the Lectern blog, wrote in an email that he, too, has noticed the trend. "The Chief Justice has definitely felt more comfortable dissenting lately, after not expressing any disagreements until a year ago," he wrote.

Through a spokesperson, the chief justice declined to comment for this article.

Guerrero, who grew up in the Imperial Valley as the daughter of Mexican immigrants, has an impressive resume. A graduate of UC Berkeley and Stanford Law School, she is a former Latham & Watkins LLP partner who served a stint at the U.S. attorney's office before she was appointed to the San Diego County Superior Court and then the 4th District Court of Appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed her as a Supreme Court justice in 2022, and she was quickly promoted to chief justice after her predecessor, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, decided not to seek another term.

While legal experts say it's too early to draw sweeping conclusions from her handful of dissents, they also say Guerrero - now that she's settled in - may be "finding her voice," said Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School.

In January, the court vacated the second-degree murder conviction of a woman, Brittney Collins, whose male partner killed their 2-month-old son.

Justice Kelli M. Evans, writing for the majority, said it was a "close case" but concluded that "the evidence fails to establish Collins harbored the requisite mens rea to convict her of second degree murder under either a direct aider and abettor theory or a direct perpetrator theory." People v. Collins, 2025 DJDAR 101 (Cal. S. Ct., filed May 2, 2023).

In her dissent, joined by Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Guerrero said it was the jury's decision, and "a reasonable jury could have relied on the evidence in the record to find Collins guilty of implied malice murder as a direct perpetrator."

But she went further in criticizing the five justices in the majority.

"The majority's approach reflects a wholesale abandonment of the proper standard of review," Guerrero wrote. "The majority has decided for itself what evidence to credit, how conflicts in the evidence should be resolved, and which reasonable inferences based on the evidence to believe."

Last Monday, the court ruled 4-3 that under a 2021 statute, prior convictions must qualify as 'serious felonies' under current law to enhance prison sentences under the Three Strikes Law.

Justice Goodwin H. Liu vacated the prior serious felony findings against defendants Larry Lee Fletcher and Eric Anthony Taylor Jr., who were convicted of attempted murder with strike priors, remanding the case for retrial under the updated gang crime statute.

"We narrowly conclude that with regard to prior convictions like Fletcher's and Taylor's that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions," he wrote.

Liu - who was joined by Evans, Justice Leondra R. Kruger, and Justice Joshua P. Groban - vacated the trial court's findings that Fletcher's and Taylor's 2015 convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang constituted serious felonies. People v. Fletcher et al., 2025 DJDAR 8064 (Cal. S. Ct., filed Aug. 4, 2023).

In her pointed dissent, Guerrero wrote that Liu and the majority "claim the authority to change the Three Strikes Law under the guise of interpreting it, and in so doing it reaches a result the Legislature did not enact and the voters did not intend."

She also accused the majority of misreading the intent of the Three Strikes Law and warned the ruling would wipe out longer sentences for many convicts. Corrigan and Justice Martin J. Jenkins sided with her.

"This novel standard is virtually impossible to meet, and it will nullify decades of prior convictions that would otherwise support enhanced sentences for repeat felony offenders," Guerrero wrote. "It is also unsupported by the plain language of the relevant statutes and the intent of the voters and the Legislature that enacted them."

She also dissented in another August ruling that reversed a 1st District Court of Appeal panel that had ordered a Sonoma County judge to double the sentence of a man convicted of a home invasion robbery based on a prior strike conviction.

Kruger wrote that decision should be left to the trial judge. Guerrero cast a lone dissent, arguing that an "open-ended remand" was not justified. People v. Dain, 2025 DJDAR 7370 (Cal. S. Ct., filed March 4, 2024).

Last year, when Guerrero cast her first dissent on the state high court, Liu led with five and Evans closely followed with four, according to data compiled by David A. Carrillo, a lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law and executive director of the California Constitution Center.

Liu and Evans almost always vote together, most notably on cases in which convictions are challenged due to questions over whether minority prospective jurors have been improperly excluded. Legal experts view them as the court's left-wing bloc.

Corrigan, the lone remaining appointee of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is Guerrero's most likely ally in criminal cases. The three other judges - Kruger, Groban and Jenkins - are emerging as the swing votes.

Jon B. Eisenberg, a retired Healdsburg attorney and longtime court observer, said Guerrero's possible new role as critic of the Supreme Court's criminal jurisprudence also illustrates that, on some issues, she is not persuading enough of her colleagues.

"The recent flurry of dissents by Chief Justice Guerrero in criminal cases suggests a gradual eroding of her effectiveness in consensus building, which might be inevitable simply because of ideological differences between her and some of her colleagues," he wrote. "One might say Chief Justice Guerrero's honeymoon period is now over."

In a Friday phone interview, Eisenberg said there is nothing unhealthy about some debate on the court.

"I would put it in the category of something to watch," he said. "A year or two from now, we'll get a better sense of who she is on the bench."