Hall v. Superior Court CA2/3

Filed 10/19/13 Hall v. Superior Court CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

OTIS HALL, B250299

Petitioner, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA059412) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

Petition for writ of mandate from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven D. Ogden and David Walgren, Judges. Granted in part, denied in part. Ronald L. Brown, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, John Henderson, and Karen E. Nash, Deputy Public Defenders for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Jackie Lacey, District Attorney, Roberta T. Schwartz and Phyllis C. Asayama, Deputy District Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest.

_________________________

Having reviewed the petition for writ of mandate and the varying views of the two judicial officers who have handled aspects of the criminal proceeding against petitioner/defendant Otis Hall (Defendant) in connection with whether section 1210.1 of the Penal Code1 should be applied to the current charges against Defendant, we conclude the most expeditious manner of resolving the conflict is to: (1) vacate the order entered on May 8, 2013, and all subsequent orders and proceedings, including any orders entered on May 13, 2013, June 20, 2013, and any other orders entered after Defendant‟s guilty plea made on April 29, 2013; (2) on our own motion, and “in the interests of justice” direct that further proceedings be heard before a trial judge other than either of the judges whose orders are the subject of this proceeding (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (c)); 2 and (3) remand for transfer to a new judicial officer who shall, without consideration of the prior proceedings in this matter, exercise his or her independent judgment as to whether Defendant qualifies for the sentencing option provided in section 1210.1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant is charged with felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)(1).) On April 29, 2013, Defendant entered a guilty plea to the charges and admitted the prior conviction.3