Following a 3-month break, the Supreme Court will return to hear oral arguments after Labor Day. Of course, the “break” refers only to the time the court has been deprived of hearing scintillating expositions on the law from us lawyers. Since the last argument in early June, the court has issued 24 opinions and ruled on hundreds of petitions for review, habeas corpus, and writ relief.
There are four criminal cases and one civil case on the September calendar. And five more Court of Appeal justices will be sitting on the court by assignment, bringing to 34 the number of cases with pro tems since Justice Kennard left the court in April.
On September 3, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue(s) presented as stated on the court’s website):
Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz: Does the hearing officer in an administrative appeal of the dismissal of a correctional officer employed by a county sheriff’s department have the authority to grant a motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531? In April, the court asked the parties for supplemental briefing on these issues: (1) Assuming that a motion for discovery of officer personnel records may be filed in an administrative proceeding (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (a)), and a hearing officer has authority to determine that the motion states good cause for discovery (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3)), is there any existing statutory mechanism that would allow the matter to be transferred to the superior court for an in camera review of the records by a judicial officer (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (b))? (2) If no existing statutory mechanism applies, do we have the authority to create such a transfer mechanism? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
People v. Eroshevich: (1) If a trial court issues a ruling equivalent to an acquittal after a jury has entered a guilty verdict and the Court of Appeal reverses the trial court’s ruling on appeal, does the trial court’s erroneous acquittal nevertheless bar retrial under principles of double jeopardy if, on remand, the defendant renews an earlier motion for a new trial? (2) In such circumstances, is the Court of Appeal permitted to direct a trial court to dismiss charges and acquit a defendant if the trial court decides to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial under Penal Code section 1181? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
Teal v. Superior Court: Did defendant have the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his petition to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126, part of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, when the trial court held he did not meet the threshold eligibility requirements for resentencing? (Third District Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Robie is the pro tem.)
People v. Gonzalez: Was defendant properly convicted of both oral copulation of an unconscious person and oral copulation of an intoxicated person? (See People v. Craig (1941) 17 Cal.2d 453.) (First District, Division Five, Justice Henry Needham, Jr., is the pro tem.)
People v. Adams: [This is an automatic appeal from a July 2003 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.] (Second District, Division Six, Justice Kenneth Yegan is the pro tem.)
[August 13 update: Second District, Division Four, Justice Thomas Willhite, Jr., has been assigned as the pro tem for Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz. No word yet on the pro tem for People v. Eroshevich.]
[August 19 update: the court’s first amended calendar shows that the pro tem for People v. Eroshevich is Fifth District Justice Dennis Cornell.]
