June 12, 2015
California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose raises the question: What standard of judicial review applies to a facial constitutional challenge to inclusionary housing ordinances that require set asides or in-lieu fees as a condition of approving a development permit? (See San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643, 670.)
In People v. Le, the court will address whether Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (f), as interpreted by People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, precludes a trial court from imposing both a firearm use enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a), and a gang enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B), when the offense is a serious felony as a matter of law.
The court also asked for supplemental briefing concerning whether the People adequately met their pleading burden by generically pleading the Penal Code section 186.22 enhancement under subdivision (b)(1) without greater specificity as to whether the People sought enhancement under subdivision (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), or (b)(1)(C) of that section, and whether, in light of such generic pleading, the People should be estopped from relying or permitted to rely at sentencing on subdivision (b)(1)(B) of section 186.22. (Pen. Code, § 1170.1, subd. (e); People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735.)
The opinions can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 a.m.