The Supreme Court today announced it will hear eight cases on it June calendar. Because the court does not conduct oral arguments during the summer, these will be the last arguments until September.

Some Courts of Appeal are returning to in-person arguments, but the Supreme Court’s June calendar, like all of its calendars since April 2020, will be remote and based in San Francisco.  (See here, here, here, here, and here.)  The arguments will be live streamed, as all arguments have been since May 2016.

On June 7 and 8, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):

People v. Renteria: The court granted review in April 2021 and soon after limited the issue to: “When a member of a criminal street gang acts alone in committing a felony, what evidence will suffice to establish the felony was ‘committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members’?  (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1); see People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 59-60.)”

Guardianship of Saul H.: The case presents issues relating to petitions for Special Immigrant Findings under Code of Civil Procedure section 155. The court granted review less than five months ago and expedited briefing and oral argument. It also appointed pro bono counsel to support the Court of Appeal’s decision. Horvitz & Levy is pro bono appellate counsel for the appellant and petitioner on review.

Coast Community College District v. Commission on State Mandates: When the court granted review and depublished the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in August 2020, the court limited the issues to:  “1. Whether regulations that establish minimum conditions entitling California community college districts to receive state aid constitute a reimbursable state mandate within the meaning of article XIII B, section 6 of the California Constitution.  2. Whether a court lacks jurisdiction under article XIII B, section 6 of the California Constitution to make subvention findings on statutes that were not specifically identified in an initial test claim.  3. Whether a court lacks jurisdiction to remand a test claim based on a statute that was the subject of a prior final decision by the Commission on State Mandates.”

Geiser v. Kuhns: The court granted review in July 2020 and limited the issue to: “How should it be determined what public issue or issue of public interest is implicated by speech within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4)) and the first step of the two-part test articulated in FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 149-150, and should deference be granted to a defendant’s framing of the public interest issue at this step?”

Hoffmann v. Young: Can an invitation to enter by a non-landowner — here, the landowner’s child — that was made without the landowner’s knowledge or express approval satisfy the requirements of Civil Code section 846, subdivision (d)(3), and abrogate the landowner’s immunity from liability for damages suffered during permissive recreational use of the property? The court granted review in February 2021. Horvitz & Levy is appellate counsel for the defendant and petitioner on review.

People v. Hendrix: A week after granting review in January 2021, the court limited the issue to: “Did the Court of Appeal err in holding an instructional error on the defense of mistake of fact harmless?  In the circumstances of this case, which standard of prejudice applies to an error in instructing on the defense of mistake of fact:  that of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 or that of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18?”

People v. Aguayo: When the court un-held the case in November 2019 (the court initially granted-and-held in May 2019; the notice of appeal was filed in December 2017), it asked for briefing on these questions:  “Is assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon?  If so, was defendant’s conviction of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury based on the same act or course of conduct as her conviction of assault with a deadly weapon?  In briefing the first question, the parties should consider People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 16, footnote 5.” In April 2020, the court asked for supplemental briefing on: “Are Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) [assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm] and section 245, subdivision (a)(4) [assault upon the person of another by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury] merely different statements of the same offense for purposes of section 954?  If so, must one of defendant’s convictions be vacated?”

People v. Ramirez: This is an automatic direct appeal from a July 2001 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed in March 2006. Briefing was completed in July 2015.