The Supreme Court’s six-case late-May calendar announced yesterday includes five criminal matters, two of which are automatic death penalty appeals. With May being the only month with two argument calendars, and nine cases to be heard next week, the court will host 15 arguments in a two-week period.
Two of the late-May cases are on our list of the 10 oldest, unargued, non-capital cases. Four others on the list are being argued next week.
Because of Justice Jenkins’s October 2025 retirement, there will be — for the eighth straight calendar — a Court of Appeal justice sitting pro tem in each case. The pro tems will be named later. (See: Why does the Supreme Court use pro tems?)
On Wednesday, May 20, in San Francisco, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or, if indicated, limited by the court itself):
Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America: “Is a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that contains two options inherently invalid, presumptively invalid, or invalid or partially or entirely valid depending on a separate and independent evaluation of each option?” The court granted review in January 2025. More about the case here.
People v. Hyatt: “(1) Has a defendant who has been sentenced to a prison term and is housed in a county jail pending transport to state prison ‘entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison,’ so that they may demand a trial on other, pending charges within 90 days pursuant to Penal Code section 1381? (2) Is the dismissal of a felony complaint prior to the preliminary hearing an ‘appealable order in a felony case,’ such that an appeal by the People is heard by the Court of Appeal? (See Pen. Code, § 1235, subd. (b).)” The court granted review in June 2025. More about the case here.
People v. Hernandez: Number two on the 10-oldest-cases list. “Does the totality of the circumstances establish that defendant meaningfully understood the immigration consequences of her plea?” A month ago, the court directed supplemental briefing on this question: “Assuming for the sake of argument that Defendant has established error, has she demonstrated a ‘reasonable probability’ that she would not have pled guilty had she ‘correctly understood [the] actual or potential immigration consequences’ of doing so (People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529)?” The court granted review in December 2023. More about the case here and here.
People v. Esquivias: Number 10 on the 10-oldest-cases list. “Does the issuance of an order to show cause to review one aspect of a defendant’s sentence in habeas corpus proceedings render applicable all ameliorative laws taking effect after the defendant’s judgment became final?” The court granted review in October 2024. More about the case here.
People v. Lightsey: This is an automatic direct appeal from a February 2015 judgment of death. Unlike in discretionary review cases, the court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel were appointed in March 2018. Briefing was completed in February 2024.
People v. Shove: This is an automatic direct appeal from a March 2008 judgment of death. Unlike in discretionary review cases, the court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel were appointed in January 2013. Initial party briefing was completed in November 2018. The last supplemental brief was filed in March 2022. Over the course of the appeal, the defendant has made numerous pro se submissions to the court, including multiple motions to remove his state public defender as his counsel. The court denied all the motions and returned the remainder of the submissions.
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by August 17.
