Ziesmer

Ziesmer v. Superior Court

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 360·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 130
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 2003B162045California2,229 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gregory D. Totten, District Attorney, William Haney, Kevin Drescher, Michael D. Schwartz, Senior Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

No appearance for Respondent.

GILBERT, P.J.

Here we conclude that the dismissal of a grand jury indictment pursuant to Penal Code section 995, subdivision (a)(1)(A) terminates the action. Therefore, if the action is refiled and assigned to the same judge to whom the case was originally assigned, a party may disqualify the judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.

We grant David Ziesmer's petition for writ of mandate and direct respondent court to vacate its order denying Ziesmer's timely peremptory challenge to the judge assigned to his case.

On August 21, 2000, the Ventura grand jury indicted Ziesmer for murder. On May 25, 2001, the case was assigned to Judge O'Neill for all purposes. Ziesmer did not challenge Judge O'Neill as permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 ("section 170.6"). [1] Judge O'Neill set the case for trial and heard pretrial motions concerning application of the attorney-client privilege to items seized during a special master search and issued orders restricting Ziesmer's…

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.