BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//JudicialCouncil//NONSGML v1.0//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:event1171@trial.court
DTSTAMP:20260911T074027Z
DTSTART:20201007T160000Z
DTEND:20201007T213000Z
SUMMARY:Supreme Court Oral Arguments for October 7, 2020
DESCRIPTION:Counsel will appear remotely and courtroom seating for the press will be
 strictly limited to achieve appropriate distancing. The public will continue
 to have access to argument via live-streaming. 
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:<p>Counsel will appear remotely and courtroom seating for the press will be strictly limited to achieve appropriate distancing.&nbsp;The public will continue to have access to argument via live-streaming.&nbsp;</p>
LOCATION:<p>View the oral argument calendar <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://jcc.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file%3Djcc_ded25de4b6c621cd6341d37c1438dace.pdf%26view%3D1">here</a>.</p>

<p><span><span><span><em><strong>(1) &nbsp;</strong></em><b><i>In re Gadlin (Gregory) on Habeas Corpus, <a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2280859&amp;doc_no=S254599&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSE1JUFQ0UDxTJiNeUzNRICAgCg%3D%3D">S254599</a></i></b><a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2280859&amp;doc_no=S254599&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSE1JUFQ0UDxTJiNeUzNRICAgCg%3D%3D">&nbsp;</a></span></span></span><br />
<span><span><span><span>This case includes the following issue:&nbsp; Under Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32), may the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation categorically exclude from early parole consideration all prisoners who have been previously convicted of a sex offense requiring registration under Penal Code section 290?&nbsp; </span></span></span></span></p>

<p><span><span><span><em><strong>(2)&nbsp; </strong></em><b><i>People v. Gentile (Joseph, Jr.), <a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2290933&amp;doc_no=S256698&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSExIQFA0UDxTJiM%2BXzNRMCAgCg%3D%3D">S256698</a></i></b><a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2290933&amp;doc_no=S256698&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSExIQFA0UDxTJiM%2BXzNRMCAgCg%3D%3D">&nbsp;</a></span></span></span><br />
<span><span><span><span>The court limited review to the following issues:&nbsp; <span>(1) Does the amendment to Penal Code section 188 by recently enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 eliminate second degree murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine?&nbsp; (2) Does Senate Bill No. 1437 apply retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal?&nbsp; (3) Was it prejudicial error to instruct the jury in this case on natural and probable consequences as a theory of murder?</span></span></span></span></span></p>

<p><span><span><span><em><strong>(3)&nbsp; </strong></em><b><i>Sass (Deborah) v. Cohen (Theodore), <a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2283927&amp;doc_no=S255262&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSExJQFw0UDxTJiNOTzxTUCAgCg%3D%3D">S255262</a></i></b><a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2283927&amp;doc_no=S255262&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSExJQFw0UDxTJiNOTzxTUCAgCg%3D%3D">&nbsp;</a></span></span></span><br />
<span><span><span><span>The court limited review to the following issues:&nbsp; (1) In a complaint that seeks an accounting of specified assets, is the plaintiff required to plead a specific amount of damages to support a default judgment, or is it sufficient for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 580 to identify the assets that are in defendant’s possession and request half of their value?&nbsp; (2) <span>Should the comparison of whether a default judgment exceeds the amount of compensatory damages demanded in the operative pleadings examine the aggregate<i> </i>amount of non-duplicative damages or instead proceed on a claim-by-claim or item-by-item basis?</span></span></span></span></span></p>

<p><span><span><span><em><strong>(4)&nbsp; </strong></em><b><i>People v. Moses III (Antonio Chavez), <a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2298206&amp;doc_no=S258143&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSENIMFQ0UDxTJiBeQz5TQCAgCg%3D%3D">S258143</a></i></b><a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2298206&amp;doc_no=S258143&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw2W1BFSSFdSENIMFQ0UDxTJiBeQz5TQCAgCg%3D%3D">&nbsp;</a></span></span></span><br />
<span><span><span><span>The court limited review to the following issue:&nbsp; Did the Court of Appeal err in reversing defendant’s conviction for human trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)(1)) on the ground that defendant was communicating with an adult police officer posing as a minor rather than an actual minor?</span></span></span></span></p>

END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR