judge13 sources, dated 2025-05-07 – 2026-10-14· last searched 2026-10-29
Associate Justice, Second District, Division Three
Overview
Synthesized 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 12 sources dated 2025-05-07 to 2026-10-14. Machine-written; numbers link to the sources below.
Hanasono joined Division Three in 2025 after 13 years as a Los Angeles County public defender and alternate public defender and about 12 years as a Superior Court criminal judge 12,9. He was rated "exceptionally well qualified" and confirmed unanimously in June 2025 12,7. His published record is two authored opinions and no dissents or concurrences 13: one denied a 1993 murder convict resentencing, taking a side in an appellate split the Supreme Court is reviewing 5,6; the other split a CSU faculty-bargaining dispute, upholding the duty to bargain but voiding the violation finding 4. A 2025 profile quotes him on writing clear opinions 8. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA and the cahighways blog say retain 11,2,1.
Record
Census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 2 authored published opinions, 0 dissents or concurrences. Published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished.13
Jan. 26, 2026, Trustees of CSU v. PERB: affirmed that CSU must bargain the effects of its student vaccine policy, but set aside PERB's unfair-practice finding and remedy for lack of substantial evidence.4
Oct. 28, 2025, People v. Taito: affirmed denial of resentencing for a 1993 robbery-murder; held aiding the underlying felony with intent to kill satisfies Penal Code § 189(e)(2), noting the Supreme Court will have the final word.5,6
Confirmed unanimously to Division Three in June 2025; Superior Court judge from 2013, including Assistant Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division 2020-2022.12,7
Stated positions
Reported 2025 quote: "Every opinion we write is an opportunity to explain--not just decide."8
Reported 2025 quote on defense appeals: "it's their job to raise those issues. You've got to address them."8
In his opinions: disability-accommodation law does not displace collective bargaining (2026); felony-murder liability under § 189(e)(2) turns on aiding the felony, not the killing (2025).4,6
Praise & support
No ethics or misconduct issues; his trial courtroom was sought after by both prosecutors and defense lawyers. The blog relies on 'Google AI' summaries. — cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)2
Mostly inoffensive pre-appointment career as a public defender; 'probably vote yes.' — Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles1
Criticism & concerns
Do not retain (no reason given; same call for nearly every Second District justice). — Reform California11
What we could not find
Only two published opinions, both unanimous; no dissents, concurrences, or constitutional-rights rulings, and no unpublished decisions reviewed.
No substantive criticism of his record from any source; the only opposition gives no reason.
His own words outside opinions come only from a reported profile excerpt, not a full interview.
Questions to consider
How did the Supreme Court resolve the § 189(e)(2) split that Taito addressed?
How does he rule in criminal appeals that raise trial errors, given his defense and trial-bench background?
What do his unpublished opinions show about outcomes for defendants?
Analysis of their legal writing and words
Written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 2 primary texts4,6. An evaluative machine reading: check each point against its quoted evidence.
Coverage: Systematic sample under a fixed rule applied to every justice: all separate opinions (up to 3), then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 texts, from the court's published-opinion listings, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026. Hanasono has only two published opinions in that window, both authored majorities for unanimous Division Three panels, so the sample is 2 texts (0 separate, 2 authored): Trustees of CSU v. PERB (S1, Jan. 2026, public-sector labor) and People v. Taito (S2, Oct. 2025, felony-murder resentencing). No dissents, constitutional-rights rulings, or unscripted speech.
Text-and-structure statutory reader who leans on precedent construing identical language (Dickey in S2) and on statutory structure (comparing subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(3) in S2). Defers to PERB's legal judgment on bargaining scope but tests its fact-finding against the record, setting aside the unfair-practice finding for lack of substantial evidence (S1). On an open appellate split he picks a side while saying the Supreme Court will decide (S2). Outcomes: S2 denies a murder defendant resentencing; S1 gives the union the legal point and the university the violation finding.
In their words: insufficient_evidence: the opinions contain no statements about himself or his approach.
Articulation: StrongConsistency: Not enough evidence
Articulation. Both opinions state the holding up front and organize by issue. S1 is record-driven, parsing a witness's use of 'implemented' and the burden of proof. S2 sets out the five-case split plainly, answers the contrary opinions (Kelly, Jackson) in footnotes, and adds a structural argument comparing subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(3). Prepared judicial prose only.
Consistency. Two opinions in unrelated fields three months apart cannot establish consistency. Within them the method is the same: text and structure first, attention to burden and record, narrow holdings.
Positions
Public-employer effects bargaining: Student vaccine rules with foreseeable faculty-health effects must be bargained; disability-accommodation law does not displace collective bargaining.
“PERB did not err by finding that CSU has a duty to bargain over the effects of its revised student vaccine policy.”42026-01-26
“Because we see no indication that the Legislature intended to allow employees to seek disability accommodations permitted by FEHA and the ADA only through individual negotiations, to the exclusion of collective bargaining, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the PERB's conclusion that the 2023 policy was a proper subject of effects bargaining.”42026-01-26
Clarifying bargaining demands: An employer may seek clarification informally rather than only at the bargaining table.
“As the County of Orange dissent notes, requiring that clarification take place through formal bargaining eviscerates the distinction between bargainable and nonbargainable matters and allows employee organizations to demand bargaining over even non-negotiable management decisions.”42026-01-26
Felony-murder resentencing (Penal Code § 189(e)(2)): A non-killer who aided the underlying felony with intent to kill remains liable; a special-circumstance finding bars resentencing.
“Until then, we follow those cases that interpret section 189, subdivision (e)(2) to mean the non-killer must aid, abet, or assist in the qualifying felony, not the killing.”62025-10-28
“We agree with Morris and Lopez I that the Legislature’s use of the same phrase interpreted in Dickey indicates its intent that the phrase in section 189, subdivision (e)(2) has the same meaning.”62025-10-28
Stated principles (3)
Agency findings must rest on substantial evidence in the record.
“For all of these reasons, the administrative record is devoid of any substantial evidence to support PERB's conclusion that CSU had begun implementing the 2023 policy in February or March 2023.”42026-01-26
Read statutes to match the Legislature's stated goal of punishment proportional to culpability.
“Adopting such an interpretation of subdivision (e)(2) would run counter to the express legislative intent of ensuring punishment according to the level of individual culpability.”62025-10-28
Decide no more than necessary and acknowledge higher-court authority.
“We do not need to determine whether the record conclusively demonstrates that Taito was the actual killer.”62025-10-28
“The Supreme Court granted review in four of these cases and will have the final word on the actus reus required by section 189, subdivision (e)(2).”62025-10-28
Notable rhetoric
Unusual precision about the record: S1 rests a key holding on what a witness was and was not asked.
Candor about an unsettled split and its pending Supreme Court review (S2).
Adopts a dissenting agency member's reasoning over the agency majority, with attribution (S1).
Limits: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; unpublished decisions and opinions he joined are not sampled. Two unanimous majorities cannot show how he writes in dissent, rules on constitutional claims, or reviews criminal trials beyond resentencing. Opinions are institutional products.
Ask your own AI about this
Start a conversation in an assistant you use, already loaded with this page's research. Nothing goes from this site to those services until you click; after that, their privacy terms apply.
A personal voter-guide blog recommends retaining Hanasono, finding no ethics or misconduct issues; its discussion relies on "Google AI" summaries rather than primary records.
Recommendation: Retain (Yes).
Describes his trial courtroom (Department 117) as sought after by both prosecutors and defense lawyers.
Notes his all-public-defender pre-bench career and says no biased or controversial rulings have been tied to him.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Retain
cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) applies a default-retain test: retain unless there is malfeasance or similar cause.
The author, citing Google AI, says Hanasono's professional record as a jurist is "entirely clean."
Limits: Personal blog; claims about his trial-court reputation are attributed to an AI search summary and unverified here. Only the Hanasono entry was read.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
California Secretary of Stateofficial analysisRecord
The Secretary of State's official list of judicial contests for November 3, 2026 includes a retention question for Associate Justice Mark Hanasono, Second District, Division Three.
Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice MARK HANASONO be elected to the office for the term provided by law?"
Listed under Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura).
Facts, claims & caveats
Office
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three
List date
August 24, 2026
Limits: A ballot listing only; says nothing about his record.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Reform California, Carl DeMaio's conservative group, recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Hanasono, as it does for nearly every Second District justice, without stating reasons specific to him.
Hanasono: DO NOT RETAIN.
Of 32 Second District justices the guide lists, it recommends retaining three (Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan).
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Do not retain
Reform California rates candidates, "including school board and judges," in its "Plain English" guide.
Limits: Bare recommendation with no rationale. Its list of Second District justices does not match the Secretary of State's ballot list. Only the judicial section was read.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Democratic Socialists of America, Los AngelesendorsementSupports
DSA-LA's guide groups Hanasono among justices with "mostly inoffensive pre-appointment careers" and says voters should "probably vote yes," noting he was a Los Angeles County public defender.
Hanasono is noted as a former Los Angeles County public defender.
Recommendation is a soft yes based solely on pre-appointment career.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Probably yes
DSA-LA says it generally opposes appointing prosecutors to the bench; it raises no objection to Hanasono.
Limits: Judged on pre-bench career only, not rulings. Only the appellate section of a long guide was read.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Judicial Branch of Californiadecision recordRecord
Census of Hanasono's published Court of Appeal opinions, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: two authored majority opinions, one criminal and one public-sector labor, and no dissents or concurrences.
2 authored opinions; 0 separate opinions.
Case mix: a felony-murder resentencing appeal (People v. Taito) and a public-employee bargaining dispute (Trustees of CSU v. PERB).
Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and are not counted.
Facts, claims & caveats
Authored published opinions
2
Separate opinions (dissents/concurrences)
0
Opinions listed
Trustees of Cal. State Univ. v. PERB, B340818 (2026-01-26); People v. Taito, B337324 (2025-10-28)
Division
Second Appellate District, Division Three
The compilers state that authorship was read from each opinion's signature block.
Limits: Published opinions only, which are a small minority of an appellate justice's decisions; unpublished and joined opinions are not counted. Two items cannot show a pattern.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Threecourt opinionRecord
Writing for a unanimous panel, Hanasono split the decision in a CSU faculty-union dispute over student vaccine rules: PERB correctly found CSU must bargain the policy's effects on faculty health, but no substantial evidence showed CSU had implemented the policy or refused to bargain before the union filed its charge.
Affirms that the 2023 student vaccine policy is subject to effects bargaining; ADA/FEHA accommodation duties do not displace collective bargaining.
Sets aside PERB's unfair-practice finding and make-whole remedy.
Places the burden of proving implementation on the union as charging party, and finds the record "devoid" of evidence of implementation before March 8, 2023.
Adopts a PERB dissent's view that an employer may seek clarification of a bargaining demand informally, not only at the bargaining table.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. v. PERB, B340818
Disposition
Affirmed in part, vacated in part
Panel
Hanasono (author), Egerton, Adams
The court reasons that requiring clarification only through formal bargaining would let unions demand bargaining over non-negotiable management decisions.
Limits: One case; mixed result for each side.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Threecourt opinionRecord
Writing for a unanimous panel, Hanasono affirmed the denial, without a hearing, of a resentencing petition from a man convicted of a 1993 robbery-murder, holding the jury's felony-murder special-circumstance finding makes him ineligible as a matter of law.
Declines to decide whether the record conclusively shows Taito was the actual killer.
Takes a side in a five-case appellate split: aiding the underlying felony with intent to kill satisfies Penal Code section 189(e)(2).
Relies on People v. Dickey's reading of identical language and on the structure of section 189(e).
Engages the contrary Kelly and Jackson opinions in footnotes and notes the Supreme Court will have "the final word."
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
People v. Taito, B337324
Disposition
Affirmed
Panel
Hanasono (author), Egerton, Adams
Status
Review granted by the California Supreme Court
The court reasons that a contrary reading would make felony-murder liability harder to prove for those who intend to kill than for those merely recklessly indifferent.
Limits: Review granted; the governing question is pending before the Supreme Court. One criminal case.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3court opinionRecord
Writing for a unanimous panel, Hanasono affirmed the no-hearing denial of resentencing for a man convicted of a 1993 robbery-murder: the jury's felony-murder special-circumstance finding makes him ineligible as a matter of law.
Declines to decide whether the record conclusively shows Taito was the actual killer.
Takes a side in a five-case appellate split: a non-killer who aids the underlying felony with intent to kill is liable under Penal Code section 189(e)(2).
Relies on People v. Dickey's reading of the same phrase and on the structure of section 189(e).
Answers the contrary Kelly and Jackson opinions in footnotes and notes the Supreme Court "will have the final word."
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
People v. Taito, B337324
Disposition
Affirmed
Panel
Hanasono (author), Egerton, Adams
Statute
Penal Code sections 1172.6 and 189(e)(2)
The court reasons that the contrary reading would make felony-murder liability harder to prove for a defendant who intended to kill than for one who was merely recklessly indifferent.
The court notes the Supreme Court has granted review in four of the five split cases.
Limits: One criminal case on a question the opinion itself says is pending in the Supreme Court; the slip opinion does not say whether review was later sought or granted in this case.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Southern California Appellate News (Ben Shatz)newsNeutral
Southern California Appellate News excerpts a Daily Journal profile of Hanasono on his nomination, quoting him on his public-defender roots and on the purpose of appellate opinions.
Reported quote: "Being on the appellate court was never something I plotted out."
Reported quote: "Every opinion we write is an opportunity to explain--not just decide. If our rulings aren't clear or accessible, they're not useful."
Reported quote on defense appeals: "from the defense perspective, it's their job to raise those issues. You've got to address them."
Notes he twice sat as a pro tem associate justice on the Second District.
Facts, claims & caveats
Trial courtroom
Department 117
Prior appellate service
Twice sat as associate justice pro tem, Second District
Hanasono, as quoted by the Daily Journal, says appellate rulings that are not clear or accessible are not useful.
Limits: Second-hand excerpt of a paywalled Daily Journal article; quotes are as reported, not verified against the original.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Governor Newsom's release nominating then-Judge Hanasono as Associate Justice of Division Three, filling the vacancy left by Justice Luis A. Lavin's retirement.
Superior Court judge since 2013; Deputy Alternate Public Defender 2004–2013; Deputy Public Defender 2000–2004; D.C. Superior Court law clerk 1999–2000.
The release identifies him as a Democrat.
Facts, claims & caveats
Vacancy
Retirement of Justice Luis A. Lavin
Party registration
Democrat
Limits: Announcement only; no evaluation of his work.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
The court's official profile of Hanasono: Division Three associate justice since 2025, after 13 years as a Los Angeles County public defender and alternate public defender and nearly 12 years as a Superior Court criminal judge.
Deputy Public Defender 2000–2004; Alternate Public Defender 2004–2013, including capital cases, and a felony team leader.
Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court in 2013; Assistant Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division 2020–2022.
Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission; confirmed unanimously in June 2025.
Lecturer at UCLA School of Law; has published in legal journals.
Facts, claims & caveats
Education
UC Berkeley (B.A., summa cum laude); Georgetown University Law Center
JNE rating
Exceptionally well qualified
Confirmation
June 2025, unanimous
The Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission rated him "exceptionally well qualified," per the court.
Limits: Self-published court biography; describes career, not decisions.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.