Tuesday, March 5, 9 a.m.
(1) County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Co. Employee Relations Comm. (Service Employees International Union, Local 721, Real Party in Interest), S191944
Decision below reported at 192 Cal.App.4th 1409. This case presents the following issues: (1) Under the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), do the interests of non-union-member public employees in the privacy of their personal contact information outweigh the interests of the union representing their bargaining unit in obtaining that information in furtherance of its duties as a matter of labor law to provide fair and equal representation of union-member and non-union-member employees within the bargaining unit? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding to the trial court with directions to apply a specific notice procedure to protect such employees’ privacy rights instead of permitting the parties to determine the proper procedure for doing so?
(2) McWilliams (John W.) v. City of Long Beach, S202037
Decision below unpublished. This case presents the following issue: Can a local ordinance preclude the filing of a class claim for a tax refund, or are the provisions of the Government Claims Act excepting from its reach claims brought under a “statute prescribing procedures for the refund . . . of any tax” (Gov. Code, § 905, subd. (a)) inapplicable to local ordinances?
(3) In re Boyette (Maurice) on Habeas Corpus, S092356
Original proceeding. In this case, which is related to the automatic appeal in People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, the court issued an order to show cause limited to claims of juror misconduct.
(4) People v. Beltran (Tare Nicholas), S192644
Decision below unpublished. This case presents the following issues: (1) Was the jury misinstructed with former CALCRIM No. 570 on provocation and heat of passion as a basis for a conviction of voluntary manslaughter? (2) Did the prosecutor misstate the applicable law on the subject in argument? (3) Did the trial court accurately respond to a jury question on the subject? (4) If there was error, was defendant prejudiced?
(5) People v. Nuckles (Jane), S200612
Decision below unpublished. This case presents the following issue: Was defendant properly convicted of being an accessory to a felony for assisting another person to abscond from his parole term after serving his sentence for that felony?
Wednesday, March 6, 10 a.m.
(6) People v. Park (Aaron Sung-Uk), S193938
Decision below unpublished. The court limited review to the following issue: Should the enhancement imposed on defendant under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), be stricken because his prior conviction for a serious felony was reduced to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), and dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4?
(7) People v. Bryant (Amalia Catherine), S196365
Decision below reported at 198 Cal.App.4th 134. This case presents the following issue: May voluntary manslaughter be premised on a killing without malice that occurs during commission of an inherently dangerous assaultive felony?