People v. Rodriguez, 1 Cal. 5th 676

Rodriguez was charged, moved to suppress evidence seized from his computer; Judge Chiarello granted the suppression in superior court and the case was dismissed. The People refiled the same charges.
Under Penal Code §1538.5(p) a relitigated suppression motion "shall be heard by the same judge who granted the motion . . . if the judge is available." Rodriguez requested assignment to Judge Chiarello for the relitigated motion.
Presiding Judge Nadler refused, declaring Judge Chiarello "not available" because he had been transferred to another division (Palo Alto); the motion was heard and denied by another judge (Zecher).
Rodriguez challenged the reassignment; the Court of Appeal upheld the presiding judge’s broad discretion to declare a judge unavailable.
The California Supreme Court granted review and held the presiding judge abused discretion by not taking reasonable, good‑faith steps (and making an on‑the‑record finding) to determine Judge Chiarello’s availability under §1538.5(p); the error was prejudicial and reversal/remand was required.

Issue	Rodriguez's Argument	People’s Argument	Held
Whether trial courts have bounded discretion to declare a judge "available" under §1538.5(p)	The phrase "if the judge is available" is a narrow exception; a judge is unavailable only for grave reasons (death, retirement, clear impracticability), so mere reassignment or location change does not suffice	Presiding judges have plenary managerial discretion to assign business; "available" permits practical convenience-based determinations	Trial courts have discretion, but it is constrained: a judge is unavailable only if the court, acting in good faith, takes reasonable steps and still cannot arrange for that judge to hear the motion; the finding must be on the record.
Remedy and prejudice standard when availability finding is deficient	Relief is warranted when court fails to take reasonable measures; defendant need not prove probability of a different ruling by the original judge for writ review	People argued substantial evidence could support the alternate judge’s ruling so no prejudice	The failure to take reasonable, good‑faith, on‑the‑record steps is an abuse of discretion; prejudice assessed under People v. Watson applies where it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have occurred if original judge had heard the motion.

Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, 16 Cal.4th 953 (trial court managerial discretion and inherent powers)
Anderson v. Phillips, 13 Cal.3d 733 (presiding judge’s discretionary assignments)
Jimenez v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 798 (legislative history and anti‑forum shopping purpose of §1538.5(p))
Schlick v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.4th 310 (pre‑amendment rule limiting relitigation of suppression motions)
Francis v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 19 (interpretation of "available" re: judge availability for new‑trial motion)
Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (expectation that certain proceedings not be reassigned for mere administrative convenience)
Telefilm, Inc. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.2d 289 (contingencies that can render a judge unable to hear a motion)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for reversible error/prejudice)