Parmar

People v. Parmar

Good Law

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 31·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 53·2001 Daily Journal DAR 1077·86 Cal. App. 4th 781·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 831

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 2001C032818California10,131 words

Opinion

Scotland, J.

Upon certification by the Appellate Division of the Sacramento County Superior Court, we ordered this appeal transferred to this court in order to settle an important question of law. (Pen. Code, § 1471.)

The defendants, Prakash Vallabhdas Parmar and Rosemary Parmar, are facing a 250-count misdemeanor complaint arising out of their ownership and operation of two contiguous motels on Auburn Boulevard in Sacramento County. On defendants’ motion, the trial court entered an order disqualifying Deputy District Attorney Rita-Jane Spillane, her immediate supervisors, and the office unit of which she is a part from prosecuting the action. (Pen. Code, § 1424, subd. (a)(1).) In ruling on the disqualification motion, the court concluded that a contract between the district attorney’s office and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA), by which SHRA partially funds a position in the district attorney’s office for the purpose of prosecuting nuisance actions, is contrary to public policy and void.

As we shall explain, we agree with the district attorney that the contract is not contrary to public policy, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the…

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.