Maas v. Superior Court of San Diego County
1 Cal. 5th 962
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Michael Maas filed a superior-court petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his Three Strikes–related sentence as resulting from ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Maas requested the clerk’s notice of the judge assigned to initially review his habeas petition; the clerk did not timely disclose the judge’s identity.
- Judge John M. Thompson (who had not presided over Maas’s underlying criminal trial) summarily denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
- Maas alleged he would have used a Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6 peremptory challenge had he known the assigned judge’s identity and sought relief in the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal granted a writ directing reassignment of the petition; the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 170.6 applies at the initial petition-assessment stage (before an order to show cause issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maas) | Defendant's Argument (AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a habeas corpus petition is a “special proceeding” under § 170.6 | A petition is part of the habeas proceeding; § 170.6 should be liberally construed to permit disqualification. | § 170.6 applies only after an order to show cause/writ issues because that is when a proceeding is truly instituted. | A habeas petition is part of a special proceeding for § 170.6 purposes; petitioner may seek disqualification. |
| Whether the judge’s initial assessment of a petition (prima facie review) is a matter involving a “contested issue of law or fact” under § 170.6 | The initial assessment requires legal determinations (e.g., whether allegations, assumed true, state entitlement to relief) and thus involves contested legal issues. | Initial screening is like a demurrer/summary-judgment-threshold — no contested issues decided; only issuance of an order to show cause frames a contested proceeding. | The prima facie assessment resolves contested issues of law and falls within § 170.6’s proscription against a judge hearing such matters. |
| Whether a petitioner may peremptorily disqualify the judge assigned to screen the petition before an order to show cause issues | If the assigned judge did not participate in the underlying criminal action, petitioner is entitled to notice and may timely use § 170.6 to disqualify. | Allowing early peremptory challenges would disrupt prompt review, waste resources, and create timing problems; should be limited. | Permissible: petitioner is entitled to notice of assignment and may file a § 170.6 motion before the judge rules, subject to the statute’s procedural limits (including that the judge not have participated in the original trial). |
| Effect of prior judge involvement in the original criminal action on § 170.6 availability | A judge who presided over the underlying trial is the appropriate judge to resolve related habeas issues; § 170.6 should be unavailable then as a continuation. | — | If the assigned judge participated in the underlying criminal action, the habeas proceeding is treated as a continuation and a peremptory challenge is untimely/ unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 12 Cal.3d 512 (recognizing § 170.6 as an extraordinary, automatic right of peremptory disqualification)
- Solberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 182 (liberal construction of § 170.6 to allow peremptory challenges)
- People v. Romero, 8 Cal.4th 728 (describing habeas procedure and prima facie screening standard)
- In re Hochberg, 2 Cal.3d 870 (discussing issuance of order to show cause as instituting a proceeding)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (noting summary denial still reflects consideration of merits)
- Yokley v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.3d 622 (holding order to show cause may be treated as continuation of original action and discussing when § 170.6 is available)
- People v. Smith, 196 Cal.App.2d 854 (permitting § 170.6 challenge to judge on probation revocation when judge had no prior involvement)