Hemingway

Hemingway v. Superior Court

Good Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 1148·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 363·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1638·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12234·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8986
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2004G033896California3,394 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

Petitioner Rodney Hemingway argues the trial court erred by failing to respond immediately to his motion to disqualify itself pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and by improperly denying his motion as untimely. We agree. In a supplemental petition, Hemingway contends the same court issued an unlawful nunc pro tunc order in an attempt to rectify its failure to act when the motion was first filed. Again, we agree. The petition is granted.

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 5, 2004, the prosecution filed a felony complaint charging Hemingway with one felony count of domestic battery with corporal injury as a felony, and five misdemeanor counts involving domestic violence battery, battery, and assault. On the same day, Hemingway appeared without counsel in Department S3 of the Laguna Niguel facility before Judge Pamela L. lies for arraignment. Hemingway agreed to waive his right to be arraigned, and the court continued the arraignment for 17 days to January 22, 2004, to give Hemingway an opportunity to obtain counsel. At the same time, the court assigned the case to itself for all purposes. On January 22, Hemingway again appeared in court without…

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.