The Supreme Court today announced its October calendar. Like its just-concluded September calendar, there will be eight Court of Appeal justices sitting pro tem. (We’re now into the M’s in the alphabetical assignment of pro tems.) This is the second consecutive calendar with an unfilled seat on the court.
On October 2 and 3, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):
T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.: May the brand name manufacturer of a pharmaceutical drug that divested all ownership interest in the drug be held liable for injuries caused years later by another manufacturer’s generic version of that drug? The court granted review 15 months ago. (Third District Court of Appeal Justice Louis Mauro is the pro tem.)
Kurwa v. Kislinger: Can plaintiff take an appeal in the current posture of this litigation? The court granted review 13 months ago. This is the second time this case has been before the court, both times regarding appealability. (Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Judith McConnell is the the pro tem.)
Jackson v. Superior Court: After an incompetent defendant has reached the maximum three-year commitment provided for by law, can the prosecution initiate a new competency proceeding by obtaining dismissal of the original complaint and proceeding on a new charging document? The court granted review a year ago. (First District, Division Three, Court of Appeal Presiding Justice William McGuiness is the pro tem.)
People v. Gallardo: Was the trial court’s decision that defendant’s prior conviction constituted a strike incompatible with Descamps v. U.S. (2013) 570 U.S. __ (133 S.Ct. 2276) because the trial court relied on judicial fact-finding beyond the elements of the actual prior conviction? The court granted review 19 months ago. (Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal Justice Brian Hoffstadt is the pro tem.)
People v. Contreras: This is an un-hold case. When it un-held the case, the court directed the parties to brief this issue: Is a total sentence of 50 years to life or 58 years to life the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders? The court originally granted review (and held the case) over two and a half years ago. (Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal Justice Sandy Kriegler is the pro tem.)
People v. Rices: This is an automatic direct appeal from an August 2009 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals. (The pro tem justice has not yet been assigned for this case.)
People v. Frierson: What is the standard of proof for a finding of ineligibility for resentencing under Proposition 36? (See People v. Arevalo (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 836; cf. People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020)? The court granted review 11 months ago. (The pro tem justice has not yet been assigned for this case.)
People v. Hicks: Did the trial court err when it refused to inform the jury at the retrial of a murder charge that defendant had been convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter in the first trial? (Compare People v. Batchelor (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1102.) The court granted review 18 months ago. (Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal Justice Eileen Moore is the pro tem.)
[September 13 update: the to-be-named pro tems have been named. In Rices, Fourth District, Division One, Justice Gilbert Nares is the pro tem. In Frierson, Fourth District, Division Two, Justice Douglas Miller is the pro tem.]