The Supreme Court is heading south for its December calendar. It will have been six months since the court heard arguments in Los Angeles.
This will be Justice Baxter’s last calendar; he’s retiring when his term ends on January 5.
There’s one very old case on the calendar. Actually, there are two, but one’s a death penalty appeal and they all have long shelf lives. The non-death penalty oldie is People v. Mosley, in which the Supreme Court granted review almost four years ago. How old is it? Justice Moreno, who left the court in March 2011, voted to grant review in Mosley.
If we did the math right, the six pro tems for the December calendar (or maybe there will be just five, because two of the cases raise related issues and might have the same pro tem) will bring to 51 the number of Supreme Court cases with pro tems since Justice Kennard left the court in April. How much longer will Justice Kennard’s seat remain vacant? I’m not good at predictions, but I’ll make one (and bury it inconspicuously in the middle of this post): the governor will announce an appointment within the next two weeks.
On December 2, in Los Angeles, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):
State Department of Public Health v. Superior Court: In the context of a request under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250) for citations issued by the Department of Public Health to state facilities housing the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled, can the public accessibility provisions for citations issued under the Long-Term Care Act (Health & Saf. Code, § 1417 et seq.) be reconciled with the confidentiality provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) and the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 4500 et seq.), and, if so, how? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley: Did the City of Berkeley properly conclude 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? (Second District, Division Two, Presiding Justice Roger Boren is the pro tem.)
People v. Johnson: [This is an automatic appeal from a November 2000 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.] (With a pro tem to be named later.)
State of California v. Superior Court: Can the California Highway Patrol be considered the special employer of a tow truck driver participating in the Freeway Service Program? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
People v. Mosley: 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, 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.? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
In re Taylor: Does 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, constitute an unreasonable statutory parole condition that infringes on their constitutional rights? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
[November 14 update: The court has announced the remaining pro tems for the December cases.
State Department of Public Health v. Superior Court: Second District, Division Six, Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert.
People v. Johnson: Second District, Division Eight, Justice Elizabeth Grimes.
State of California v. Superior Court: Fifth District Presiding Justice Brad Hill.
People v. Mosley and In re Taylor: Sixth District Justice Adrienne Grover.]