The Supreme Court today announced its November calendar.  Arguments will be in Sacramento.

On November 1 and 2, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):

People v. Corpening: Did Penal Code section 654 bar the imposition of sentence for both robbery and carjacking when the two crimes were accomplished by a single act?

People v. Sivongxxay:  This is an automatic appeal from an April 1999 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.  However, the court early last year asked for supplemental briefing on this question:  If the trial court fails to obtain a capital defendant’s separate waiver of his right to a jury determination of the special circumstance allegation, does that failure compel automatic reversal of the special circumstance finding?  (See Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584; Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1; People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825.)

People v. Winbush:  This is an automatic appeal from a July 2003 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.  Argument in the case was continued from the September calendar.

Association of California Insurance Companies v. Jones:  (1) Does the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code, § 790, et seq.) give the Insurance Commissioner authority to promulgate a regulation that sets forth requirements for communicating replacement value and states that noncompliance with the regulation constitutes a misleading statement, and therefore an unfair trade practice, for purposes of the act?  (2) Does the Insurance Commissioner have the statutory authority to promulgate a regulation specifying that the communication of a replacement cost estimate that omits one or more of the components in subdivisions (a)-(e) of section 2695.183 of title 10 of the California Code of Regulations is a “misleading” statement with respect to the business of insurance? (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 10, § 2695.183, subd. (j).)  Argument in the case was continued from the October calendar, which concluded today.

City of San Jose v. Superior Court:  Are written communications pertaining to city business, including email and text messages, which (a) are sent or received by public officials and employees on their private electronic devices using their private accounts, (b) are not stored on city servers, and (c) are not directly accessible by the city, “public records” within the meaning of the California Public Records Act?

Barry v. State Bar of California:  If the trial court grants a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 on the ground that the plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on the merits because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, does the court have the authority to award the prevailing party the attorney fees mandated by section 425.16, subdivision (c)?  This is a case in which the court granted relief to file a late petition for review.

Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital:  Are the time constraints in California Code of Civil Procedure section 659a jurisdictional such that a court cannot consider late-filed documents?

People v. White:  Was defendant properly convicted of both rape of an intoxicated person and rape of an unconscious person for a single act of sexual intercourse?

[October 27 update:  The November calendar is down to six cases after the court continued to the December calendar arguments in the Sivongxxay and City of San Jose cases.]