The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 9, 2024.

On October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the defendant’s habitual criminal counts.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by November 15, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the municipal court’s order of September 19, 2024.

On October 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the municipal court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to declare sections of the Westminster Municipal Code unconstitutional.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by November 14, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of August 31, 2024.

On October 10, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the defendant to disclose certain medical records.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by November 7, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of August 21, 2024.

On October 9, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the plaintiff to respond to certain discovery requests.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by November 6, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 10, 2024.

On September 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the People’s motion to exclude evidence that the victim’s manner of death was likely a suicide.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by October 25, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of August 30, 2024, and September 12, 2024.

On September 18, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) allowing the district attorney’s investigator to examine a cell phone containing privileged information, and (2) deferring ruling on whether to disqualify the district attorney’s office.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 16, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s orders of May 29, 2024, and June 11, 2024.

On August 22, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering that the defendant must disclose to the prosecution the report of any expert who would testify at the post-conviction hearing.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 19, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of February 7, 2024; and July 16, 2024.

On August 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ruling that the People need to prove that the defendant acted recklessly in order to be convicted of the charged stalking offenses.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 10, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of June 21, 2024.

On July 29, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that respondents’ claims could proceed under state law.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 26, 2024.  The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s orders of September 20, 2023; April 5, 2024; and May 30, 2024.

On July 8, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in (1) finding that a competency restoration evaluation is necessary to competency restoration, (2) finding that the Department of Human Services can conduct such an evaluation, (3) denying petitioner’s motion to strike competency evaluation, and (4) finding that the petitioner had been restored to competency.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 5, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.