Humphrey

Humphrey v. APPELLATE DIV. OF SUPERIOR CT.

Good Law
111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 213·91 Cal. App. 4th 948
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 28, 2001B149998California4,847 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Debbie Lew, Assistant City Attorney, and Katharine H. MacKenzie, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Party In interest.

After the appellate division of the superior court (appellate division) denied petitioner Eric Humphrey's petition for writ of prohibition and certified its decision for publication, we transferred the matter to us pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 62(a). [1] Petitioner Eric Humphrey challenges the denial of his petition for writ of prohibition by the appellate division, as well as our transfer of the matter under rule 62(a).

We conclude that the transfer under rule 62(a) was improvident, deem the matter before us to be a proceeding in mandamus, and address the merits of Humphrey's challenges to the denial of his writ of prohibition by the appellate division. We further conclude that the appellate division erred in denying Humphrey's writ petition, and in certifying its decision for publication.

On November 13, 2000, a six-count misdemeanor complaint was filed against Humphrey, charging him, inter alia, with annoying or molesting a child under 18 years old (Pen.Code, § 647.6, subd. (a)), [2] and sexual…

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.