After its normal two-month oral argument hiatus, the Supreme Court will conduct a six-case calendar next month, the court announced today. All but one of the matters are criminal.
The court will still be hearing arguments remotely, as it has since April 2020. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) The arguments will be live streamed, as all arguments have been since May 2016.
On September 6, the day after Labor Day, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):
Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.: In March 2019, the court agreed to answer a Ninth Circuit question, which the court restated: “Does a commercial general liability insurance policy that provides coverage for personal injury, defined as injury arising out of oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy, and that has been modified by endorsement with regard to advertising injuries, trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the insured against a claim that the insured violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. § 227) by sending unsolicited text message advertisements that did not reveal any private information?” Horvitz & Levy is counsel for the defendant.
People v. Ramirez: (1) Did the trial court err in ruling that defendant’s overdose on heroin during his jury trial was an implicit waiver of his right to be present and made him voluntarily absent within the meaning of Penal Code section 1043, subdivision (b)(2)? (2) Did the trial court err in denying the defense motion for a one-day continuance to permit defendant to testify?” The court granted review in June 2020.
People v. Ware: When it granted review in December 2020, the court limited the issue to be decided: “Does sufficient evidence support Hoskins’s Count 1 conviction for conspiracy to commit murder?” Earlier, the court requested an answer to the petition for review, saying the answer should address, “Whether a defendant may be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder where it was undisputed that the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy and his only connection to the coconspirators is common gang affiliation and social media posts which fail to prove his involvement in the conspiracy.”
People v. Henderson: The court limited the issue to, “Does the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (c)(6) & (7), 1170.12, subd. (a)(6) & (7)) require consecutive terms on multiple current violent or serious felony convictions, regardless of whether the offenses occurred on the same occasion or arose from the same set of operative facts?” The court granted review in December 2020. Today, besides scheduling the case for argument, the court vacated its prior order appointing defendant’s counsel, who didn’t file a reply brief, and appointed the California Appellate Project to represent the defendant.
People v. Miranda-Guerrero: This is an automatic direct appeal from an August 2003 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed in December 2007. Briefing was completed in October 2015.
People v. Camacho: This is an automatic direct appeal from a February 2006 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed in January 2010. Briefing was completed in February 2015.
The appointed appellate attorney in People v. Henderson recently took a new position as a staff attorney at the California Appellate Project, so the order substituting counsel should not be read as anything other than reflecting that change in employment status. One should not read into it that it is related to the decision not to file a reply brief or that new counsel will now be representing the appellant.