My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA
Filed a 170.6 yesterday. Today, a judge (assigned to a court different than where my trial will be held) DENIED my Peremptory Challenge. No reason for the denial appears on my court's website. Her order was apparently mailed to me today. But, of course, I won't have her written decision until AFTER my trial.
Female judge who issued the denial is NOT a presiding judge. So why was my challenge of a male judge (working out of a different court) sent to her for review?
Also, there's NO basis for the denial. If timely, a 170.6 is automatic.
Now I'm stuck with my original judge tomorrow. (And, of course, he knows that I "booted" him).
When I appear before him, I'll ask for a continuance, claiming I need time to petition an appellate court for writ of mandate. (I know it's something rarely granted. But I want to seek one anyway).
Naturally, my request will be DENIED, even though I have just 10 days to demand a writ, and even though a 170.6 is generally NOT reviewable by traditional appeal. I've claimed he's prejudiced against me. So I will refuse to let him hear my case until AFTER an appellate court grants/denies review of that bullsh** 170.6 ruling.
Any advice?
"It is well recognized that in enacting Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 the Legislature guaranteed to litigants an extraordinary right to disqualify a judge. The right is 'automatic' in the sense that a good faith belief in prejudice is alone sufficient, proof of facts showing actual prejudice not being required. [Citations.] ... When the affidavit is timely and properly made, immediate disqualification is mandatory. (Jacobs v. Superior Court, ... 53 Cal. 2d 187, 190. ...) Hence, [the court] was bound to accept proper affidavits without further inquiry. ..." (McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 12 Cal. 3d 512, 531-532 [116 Cal. Rptr. 260, 526 P.2d 268].) (See also Johnson v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. 2d 693, 698 [329 P.2d 5], and Pappa v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 2d 350, 354 [5 Cal. Rptr. 703, 353 P.2d 311].)
https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...3d/47/408.html

