Jones v. Superior Court CA1/2

Filed 10/14/24 Jones v. Superior Court CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DAMIAN JONES, Petitioner, A171238 v. (Solano County Sup. Ct. No. VCR239963) SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.

BY THE COURT1: Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its September 3, 2024 “Second Motion to Strike Additional Challenge as Legally Insufficient IAW CCP170.4(b)” and to “grant a hearing” on

1 Before Stewart, P.J., Miller, J., and Desautels, J.

1

Petitioner’s August 26, 2024 “Additional and Independent Challenge for Cause” (additional challenge).2 On September 13, 2024, this court requested informal opposition and reply to the petition from real party in interest, and included notice that the court might direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177–180.) On September 16, 2024, the Attorney General filed a letter stating that, after consultation with the Solano County District Attorney’s Office, “the People lack a sufficient interest in the outcome of this proceeding to respond to the claims raised” and declined to take a position on the petition’s merits. In accordance with our notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. Petitioner’s right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236–1237, 1240–1241; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240–1244.)

DISCUSSION Petitioner’s additional challenge alleged Judge Bowers was disqualified because a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1, subd, (a)(6)(A)(iii).) “This standard is ‘ “fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of the question