Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file 3 opinions: in People v. Daveggio and Michaud, People v. Chavez, and In re I. C. (Briefs here and here; oral argument videos here and here.)
The Daveggio and Michaud case was argued on the January calendar. (The filing is within the 90-day rule because the case’s submission was delayed a few weeks, waiting for an answer to an amicus curiae brief that wasn’t filed until just before oral argument.) Chavez and In re I.C. were argued on the February calendar.
Daveggio and Michaud is an automatic direct appeal from a September 2002 judgment of death. (Fourth District, Division Three, Presiding Justice Kathleen O’Leary and First District, Division Three, Court of Appeal Justice Stuart Pollak are the pro tems. Besides filling the vacancy caused by Justice Kathryn Werdegar’s retirement, a pro tem is also needed because Justice Carol Corrigan is recused in this case.)
Chavez will answer: (1) Does Penal Code section 1203.4 eliminate a trial court’s discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to dismiss a matter in the interests of justice? (2) Do trial courts have authority to grant relief under Penal Code section 1385 after sentence has been imposed, judgment has been rendered, and any probation has been completed? (Second District, Division One, Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild is the pro tem.)
In re I.C. involves these issues: (1) Did the juvenile court err by failing to determine whether the truthfulness of the minor as a hearsay declarant was “so clear from the surrounding circumstances that the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility” as required by In re Lucero L. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1227? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by affirming the trial court’s jurisdictional finding without reviewing the entire record for substantial evidence of the minor’s clear truthfulness? (Third District Court of Appeal Justice Jonathan Renner is the pro tem.)
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
