Challenge to Judge

Name: J.O. v. Super. Ct.
Case #: S287285
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 05/28/2026

Bad faith blanket challenges to a judge under CCP 170.6 potentially violate separation of powers and an objection on this ground permits inquiry into legitimacy of the challenge. Overruling precedent deeming CCP 170.6 challenges immune from scrutiny, the Supreme Court adopts Batson-style protocol for ruling on objections. If the objecting party demonstrates a prima facie case of bad faith, a hearing before another judge shall solicit the challenging party's proffer for a "subjectively genuine" prejudice belief and then determine whether the objector has proved bad faith. A bad faith finding requires denying the challenge and the case remaining with challenged…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Austin)
Case #: E086779
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 04/16/2026

Superior court judge should have been disqualified from further action in RJA case (CCP 170.1). An objective person might reasonably doubt whether the judge who had previously been a deputy district attorney could be impartial in an evidentiary hearing under the RJA involving allegations of a pattern of racial bias in death penalty and special circumstances charging by her former office during the time she was employed there.  Not all judges who are former prosecutors must recuse themselves in RJA cases; each case should be determined based on the facts and circumstances involved.

The full opinion is available on the court’s…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Broadway)
Case #: D085508
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/08/2025

Behavioral Health Court proceedings constitute a “pending trial or hearing” within the meaning of CCP 170.6(a)(1). While the screening and acceptance process is collaborative, it nevertheless involves judicial decisions regarding potentially contested matters of fact. Therefore, the court granted the writs of mandate (this case involved two similarly situated criminal cases), directing the trial court to grant the prosecution’s peremptory challenges.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: In re Tuilaepa
Case #: B310753
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 02/24/2025

Order to show cause issued in capital habeas proceeding. In non-capital holdings: (1) at the prima facie habeas stage, the trial court erred by “weighing” facts in defense experts’ declarations against rest of record and also “assessing the credibility” of the declarations; (2) the trial court’s legal errors did not suggest judicial bias requiring CCP 170.1 disqualification on remand.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Martinez
Case #: B335936
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/27/2025

By failing to object below, appellant forfeited his claim that it was error for a judge other than the judge who originally sentenced him to rule on his PC 1172.6 petition.  Even if the challenge had been preserved, appellant failed to show prejudice under the Watson standard. Appellant’s failure to establish prejudice also defeats his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to object to the judge’s assignment to the case.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: 

View Full Summary
Name: Gomez v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 778
Case #: G062526
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/15/2024

Petitioner’s Penal Code section 1172.6 proceeding was a continuation of his plea hearing and thus his peremptory challenge of the prior judge was untimely. Gomez pled to one count of attempted murder and two enhancements and was sentenced to 11 years. He later filed a section 1172.6 petition and sought to disqualify the judge (the same judge who originally sentenced him) by way of a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 motion, which was denied. Gomez filed a petition for writ of mandate. Held: Petition denied. Whether a petitioner may file a section 170.6 peremptory challenge turns on whether the…

View Full Summary
Name: Garcia v. Superior Court (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 47
Case #: E080436
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/30/2023
Subsequent History: Modified 6/7/2023

For purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, governing the timeliness of a peremptory challenge to a superior court judge, a habeas proceeding can be a continuation of a criminal action where the issues raised are related to the criminal trial. Defendant was diagnosed with porphyria, an extremely rare and potentially fatal condition where the skin becomes extremely sensitive to sunlight and sun exposure can cause burning pain and blisters. He is currently in jail awaiting trial on charges including murder. In the criminal action, the trial court granted a series of requests for evaluation and treatment to deal with…

View Full Summary
Name: Mendoza v. Superior Court
Case #: D078566
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Citation: 65 Cal.App.5th 988
Opinion Date: 06/23/2021

In a habeas proceeding where no "new trial" is ordered, a peremptory challenge to the judge is subject to the 10-day deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2). Petitioner Mendoza filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which she claimed she received ineffective assistance of counsel at her sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the petition, but the California Supreme Court later issued an order to show cause (OSC) returnable before the superior court. More than 40 days later, Mendoza filed a peremptory challenge to the judge under section 170.6. The challenge was denied as…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Oliva)
Case #: E072283
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: 36 Cal.App.5th 942
Opinion Date: 06/27/2019

After the prosecution successfully moved to dismiss a case, a new case began when the prosecution filed a complaint with the same charges and, as a result, the simultaneously filed peremptory challenge against the judge was timely. The defendant was charged with murder and related offenses. The trial court ruled on various motions as the case reached the trial stage, with some rulings in favor of the defense. The prosecution moved to dismiss the case, stating it was not prepared to go forward with the trial at that time. It then filed a new complaint with the same felony…

View Full Summary
Name: Birts v. Superior Court (San Mateo)
Case #: A152923
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Citation: 22 Cal.App.5th 53
Opinion Date: 04/11/2018

Prosecution's peremptory challenge to judge who was reassigned to case when it was refiled should have been denied as untimely because it was a clear effort by the prosecution to avoid the trial judge's orders in previously dismissed case. Birts was charged with several counts of felony domestic violence, along with special allegations. The prosecutor made several in limine motions regarding the presentation of evidence. The judge granted some, but denied others. The evidentiary rulings would have undermined the prosecution's case. The prosecution successfully moved to dismiss the case (over defense objection), citing insufficient evidence, but also stated it…

View Full Summary