As expected, the Supreme Court will file opinions on Monday in the last three undecided cases from the December calendar. These will be the last opinions signed by now-retired Justice Marvin Baxter.
In Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, the court will decide whether the City of Berkeley properly concluded that a proposed project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) under the categorical exemptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15303, subdivision (a), and 15332, and that the “Significant Effects Exception” set forth in section 15300.2, subdivision (c), of the regulations did not operate to remove the project from the scope of those categorical exemptions.
People v. Mosley presents this question: Does the discretionary imposition of lifetime sex offender registration, which includes residency restrictions that prohibit registered sex offenders from living “within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather” (Pen. Code, § 3003.5, subd. (b)), increase the “penalty” for the offense within the meaning of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, and require that the facts supporting the trial court’s imposition of the registration requirement be found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?
In March 2011 (yes, 2011; the court granted review more than four years ago), the court directed the parties to also brief these issues: (1) Does Penal Code section 3003.5, subdivision (b), validly create a misdemeanor offense subject to violation by all persons required to register for life pursuant to Penal Code section 290 et seq., regardless of their parole status?, (2) If Penal Code section 3003.5, subdivision (b), is not separately enforceable as a misdemeanor offense, does that section nevertheless operate to establish the residency restrictions contained therein as a valid condition of sex offender registration pursuant to Penal Code section 290 et seq.?
In re Taylor asks whether the residency restriction of Penal Code section 3003.5, subdivision (b), when enforced as a mandatory parole condition against registered sex offenders paroled to San Diego County, constitutes an unreasonable statutory parole condition that infringes on their constitutional rights. (See In re E.J. (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1282, fn. 10.)
The three opinions can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 a.m.
