MacKey

MacKey v. Superior Court

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 681·221 Cal. App. 3d 1124·270 Cal. Rptr. 905
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 1990B050575California801 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to.honor his peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.6. Reaffirming our decision in People v. Superior Court (Hall) (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1081, 1084-1086 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 131 ], we hold that a case assigned by a municipal court magistrate to a particular superior court department under a direct calendaring system is subject to the “10-day/5-day” rule of section 170.6. The petition is therefore granted.

Facts

After a preliminary hearing, petitioner was held to answer on felony charges and the magistrate set his arraignment for May 3, 1990, in department F of the east branch (Pomona) of the Los Angeles Superior Court. At petitioner’s arraignment (his first appearance in Department F), Judge Robert Gustaveson, who normally presides in that department, scheduled a pretrial conference for May 31, 1990, and trial for June 13, 1990.

On May 24, 1990, petitioner filed a declaration pursuant to section 170.6 as to Judge Gustaveson, who rejected the challenge as untimely because it was not filed within 10 days of arraignment. In so doing, the court relied on a 1989 amendment to section 170.6,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.