People v. Superior Court of Orange County

Filed 7/25/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Petitioner,

v. G052932

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. 14ZF0338)

COUNTY,

OPINION

Respondent;

RITO TEJEDA,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Petition granted. Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, Stephan Sauer and Brian F. Fitzpatrick, Deputy District Attorneys, for Petitioner. Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman and Paul L. Hoffman; Erwin Chemerinsky for Respondent. Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender, and David Dworakowski, Assistant Public Defender, for Real Party in Interest. Nearly 40 years ago, our Supreme Court reaffirmed “that Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, which provides for the disqualification of trial judges on motion supported by an affidavit of prejudice, does not violate the doctrine of the separation of 1 powers or impair the independence of the judiciary.” (Solberg v. Superior Court…

Nearly 40 years ago, our Supreme Court reaffirmed “that Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, which provides for the disqualification of trial judges on motion supported by an affidavit of prejudice, does not violate the doctrine of the separation of powers or impair the independence of the judiciary.” 1 (Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 186-187 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 ] (Solberg).) It did so after considering “experience with the statute [in the preceding] decades and as applied ... in a criminal context.” (Id. at p. 187.) The Solberg court reasoned, “to the extent that abuses persist in the utilization of section 170.6 they do not, in our judgment, ‘substantially impair’ or ‘practically defeat’ the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of the trial courts. Rather, it may be helpful to view them as a relatively inconsequential price to be paid for the efficient and discreet procedure provided in section 170.6. The statute thus remains a reasonable—and hence valid—accommodation of the competing interests of bench, bar, and public on the subject of judicial disqualification. We do not doubt that should future adjustments to this sensitive…

Concurring.—As an intermediate appellate court we must follow Supreme Court precedent. This axiom is often misunderstood by the general public, which may assume we are free to decide each case based on our innate sense of what is “right” or what we believe the law should be. In reality, the outcome of many appeals depends on whether an earlier Supreme Court decision covers the matter before us or fairly may be distinguished. Because I conclude the Supreme Court’s opinion in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 ] (Solberg) resolves the issues raised here, I join Justice O’Leary’s opinion that Solberg compels us to grant the petition by the People of the State of California (petitioner) for a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent Superior Court of Orange County (respondent court) to vacate its order denying petitioner’s disqualification motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.

Respondent court denied petitioner’s section 170.6 motion because it concluded the motion was part of the Orange County District Attorney’s (district attorney) coordinated campaign to “blanket paper” Judge Thomas Goethals to prevent him from…

Dissenting.—I respectfully dissent. The court’s decision today transforms Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 (section 170.6) into “a concealed weapon to be used to the manifest detriment of the proper conduct of the judicial department.” (Austin v. Lambert (1938) 11 Cal.2d 73, 79 [ 77 P.2d 849 ].) ‘ ‘“We cannot permit a device intended for spare and protective use to be converted into a weapon of offense and thereby to become an obstruction to efficient judicial administration.’ [Citation.]” (Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 198 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 ] (Solberg).)

Judge King did not abuse his discretion by denying the district attorney’s motion to disqualify Judge Goethals under section 170.6. Judge King found the motion ensued from Judge Goethals’ misconduct rulings against the district attorney’s office. Judge King concluded the motion violated the separation of powers doctrine and undermined the independence of the judiciary. Judge King’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, his legal conclusion is correct, and his ruling was not arbitrary or capricious.

*921 Solberg does not compel a different conclusion. Solberg held…