BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//JudicialCouncil//NONSGML v1.0//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:event28350@trial.court
DTSTAMP:20260405T065133Z
DTSTART:20250408T160000Z
DTEND:20250409T000000Z
SUMMARY:Supreme Court Oral Argument
DESCRIPTION:This oral argument session will be held in-person at Los Angeles.
The live webcast will begin at 9:00 a.m. on April 8 here [1].
View the Oral Argument Calendar [2] | Brief [3]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for
hearing at its courtroom in the Ronald Reagan State Office Building, 300
South Spring Street, Third Floor, North Tower, Los Angeles, California, on
April 8, 2025. The public may attend in person and will also continue to
have access to argument via live-streaming on the judicial branch website:
https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/ [4]./
*TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.*
(1) *People v. Wiley (Eric David), S283326*
#24-51 People v. Wiley (Eric David), S283326. (A165613; 97 Cal.App.5th
676; Humboldt County Superior Court; CR1902147B.) Petition for review after
the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.
This case presents the following issue: Did the sentencing court’s
consideration of circumstances in aggravation based on certified records of
prior convictions, beyond the bare fact of the convictions, violate Penal
Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(3) or defendant’s Sixth Amendment right
to a jury trial?
(2)* People v. Rhodius (Andrew Christian), S283169*
#24-34 People v. Rhodius (Andrew Christian), S283169. (E080064; 97
Cal.App.5th 38; Riverside County Superior Court; RIF1502535.) Petition for
review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a post-judgment
motion in a criminal matter. This case presents the following issue: Does
Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) entitle a defendant to a full
resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if the defendant’s
prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) were imposed
and stayed, rather than imposed and executed?
(3) *In re Bradshaw (Drexel Andrew) on Discipline, S282314*
#24-80 In re Bradshaw (Drexel Andrew) on Discipline, S282314.
(Unpublished opinion; State Bar Ct. No. 16-O-15558.) Petition for review
after a State Bar Court recommendation of discipline of an attorney. This
case presents the following issue: What is the appropriate discipline in
light of the record in this case?
*1:30 P.M.*
(4) *Ford Motor Warranty Cases, S279969*
#23-148 Ford Motor Warranty Cases, S279969. (B312261; 89 Cal.App.5th
1324; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC596216.) Petition for review
after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel
arbitration. The court limited review to the following issue: Do
manufacturers’ express or implied warranties that accompany a vehicle at
the time of sale constitute obligations arising from the sale contract,
permitting manufacturers to enforce an arbitration agreement in the contract
pursuant to equitable estoppel?
(5) *Brown (Wanda M.) v. City of Inglewood et al., S280773*
#23-187 Brown (Wanda M.) v. City of Inglewood et al., S280773. (B320658;
92 Cal.App.5th 1256; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 21STCV30604.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed
in part an order in a civil action. The court limited review to the
following issue: Are elected officials employees for purposes of
whistleblower protection under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b)?
(6) *People v. The North River Insurance Company (Bad Boys Bail Bonds, Real
Party in Interest and Appellant), S282020 *
#23-239 People v. The North River Insurance Company (Bad Boys Bail Bonds,
Real Party in Interest and Appellant), S282020. (B322752; 94 Cal.App.5th
663; Santa Clara County Superior Court; F1765160.) Petition for review
after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a bail forfeiture action
and remanded for further proceedings. This case presents the following
issues: (1) In a bail bond forfeiture proceeding under Penal Code section
1305, subdivision (g), may the court compel the prosecution to make an
extradition decision or toll the appearance period to allow time for the
prosecution to make an extradition decision? (2) Is the prosecutor’s
decision whether or not to extradite a fugitive defendant detained in a
foreign jurisdiction a fact that must be alleged in a motion to vacate bail
bond forfeiture?
[1] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/4256
[2] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2025-03/April%208%2C%202025%20OA%20Calendar%20with%20issue%20statements%20-%20FINAL.pdf
[3] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/briefs-argued-cases/april-8-2025-oral-argument-cases
[4] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:This oral argument session will be held in-person at Los Angeles.
The live webcast will begin at 9:00 a.m. on April 8 here.
View the Oral Argument Calendar | Brief
The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at its courtroom in the Ronald Reagan State Office Building, 300 South Spring Street, Third Floor, North Tower, Los Angeles, California, on April 8, 2025. The public may attend in person and will also continue to have access to argument via live-streaming on the judicial branch website: https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/.
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.
(1) People v. Wiley (Eric David), S283326
#24-51 People v. Wiley (Eric David), S283326. (A165613; 97 Cal.App.5th 676; Humboldt County Superior Court; CR1902147B.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. This case presents the following issue: Did the sentencing court’s consideration of circumstances in aggravation based on certified records of prior convictions, beyond the bare fact of the convictions, violate Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(3) or defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial?
(2) People v. Rhodius (Andrew Christian), S283169
#24-34 People v. Rhodius (Andrew Christian), S283169. (E080064; 97 Cal.App.5th 38; Riverside County Superior Court; RIF1502535.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter. This case presents the following issue: Does Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) entitle a defendant to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if the defendant’s prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) were imposed and stayed, rather than imposed and executed?
(3) In re Bradshaw (Drexel Andrew) on Discipline, S282314
#24-80 In re Bradshaw (Drexel Andrew) on Discipline, S282314. (Unpublished opinion; State Bar Ct. No. 16-O-15558.) Petition for review after a State Bar Court recommendation of discipline of an attorney. This case presents the following issue: What is the appropriate discipline in light of the record in this case?
1:30 P.M.
(4) Ford Motor Warranty Cases, S279969
#23-148 Ford Motor Warranty Cases, S279969. (B312261; 89 Cal.App.5th 1324; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC596216.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The court limited review to the following issue: Do manufacturers’ express or implied warranties that accompany a vehicle at the time of sale constitute obligations arising from the sale contract, permitting manufacturers to enforce an arbitration agreement in the contract pursuant to equitable estoppel?
(5) Brown (Wanda M.) v. City of Inglewood et al., S280773
#23-187 Brown (Wanda M.) v. City of Inglewood et al., S280773. (B320658; 92 Cal.App.5th 1256; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 21STCV30604.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Are elected officials employees for purposes of whistleblower protection under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b)?
(6) People v. The North River Insurance Company (Bad Boys Bail Bonds, Real Party in Interest and Appellant), S282020
#23-239 People v. The North River Insurance Company (Bad Boys Bail Bonds, Real Party in Interest and Appellant), S282020. (B322752; 94 Cal.App.5th 663; Santa Clara County Superior Court; F1765160.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a bail forfeiture action and remanded for further proceedings. This case presents the following issues: (1) In a bail bond forfeiture proceeding under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (g), may the court compel the prosecution to make an extradition decision or toll the appearance period to allow time for the prosecution to make an extradition decision? (2) Is the prosecutor’s decision whether or not to extradite a fugitive defendant detained in a foreign jurisdiction a fact that must be alleged in a motion to vacate bail bond forfeiture?
LOCATION:
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR