The Supreme Court today announced its March calendar. The court will hear four arguments, two of which will be in death penalty appeals. That will be the second calendar in a row with only four cases.
On March 1, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):
Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc.: (1) Should a defendant that supplied raw asbestos to a manufacturer of products be found liable to the plaintiffs on a failure to warn theory? (2) Was the trial court’s decision to treat defendant’s pre-trial motions for nonsuit and for a directed verdict as a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict procedurally improper, and if so, was it sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal? [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is counsel for Special Electric.]
People v. Franklin: This is an un-hold case. Briefing was originally deferred pending resolution of two cases — In re Alatriste and In re Bonilla — raising these issues: (1) Did Senate Bill 260 (Reg. Sess. 2013-2014), which includes provisions for a parole suitability hearing after a maximum of 25 years for most juvenile offenders serving life sentences, render moot any claim that such a sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution and that the petitioner is entitled to a new sentencing hearing applying the mitigating factors for such juvenile offenders set forth in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. 2455]? If not: (2) Does Miller apply retroactively on habeas corpus to a prisoner who was a juvenile at the time of the commitment offense and who is presently serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole? (3) Is a total term of imprisonment of 77 years to life (Alatriste) or 50 years to life (Bonilla) for murder committed by a 16-year-old offender the functional equivalent of life without possibility of parole by denying the offender a meaningful opportunity for release on parole? (4) If so, does the sentence violate the Eighth Amendment absent consideration of the mitigating factors for juvenile offenders set forth in Miller?
When the court un-held Franklin, it ordered briefing in the case to include these issues: (1) Did defendant’s sentence of 50 years to life for a homicide committed when he was a juvenile violate the Eighth Amendment? (2) Was the first issue rendered moot by the enactment of Penal Code section 3051?
Interestingly, the two cases for which Franklin originally was on hold are both fully briefed but have not been scheduled for argument yet.
People v. Salazar: This is an automatic appeal from a March 1999 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
People v. Becerra: This is an automatic appeal from an October 1997 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
