94 Cal.App.5th 497
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2011 Torres pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and second‑degree robbery (with a firearm) and was sentenced to 22 years.
- In 2019 she petitioned under Penal Code §1172.6 for resentencing; the trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel.
- While her appeal was pending, SB 775 broadened §1172.6 to cover certain defendants who accepted pleas; the Court of Appeal reversed the summary denial and remanded for proceedings under §1172.6.
- On remand the matter was assigned to Judge George J. Abdallah, Jr. (the judge who took the plea, sentenced Torres, and originally denied the petition). Torres filed a peremptory challenge under Code Civ. Proc. §170.6 relying on the post‑reversal “new trial” exception; the challenge was initially allowed, then reconsidered and effectively denied when the matter was returned to Judge Abdallah.
- The Court of Appeal denied Torres’s writ petition, holding that remand for §1172.6 proceedings is not a “new trial” under §170.6(a)(2), so the peremptory challenge was untimely; the court also upheld the trial court’s authority to revisit the earlier grant under the Geddes rationale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Torres) | Defendant's Argument (People/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand for proceedings under §1172.6 after appellate reversal qualifies as a “new trial” for Code Civ. Proc. §170.6(a)(2) purposes | The §1172.6 hearing (including possible d(3) hearing with new evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt) functionally resembles a new trial and thus fits the §170.6 exception | Remand under §1172.6 is a resentencing/review, not a new trial; the §170.6 exception therefore does not apply | Remand for §1172.6 proceedings is not a “new trial”; challenge untimely and properly denied |
| Whether the trial court (Judge Thomasson) could reconsider/route back an earlier judge’s grant of a §170.6 challenge | Once Judge Abdallah granted the challenge he was unavailable and the grant should have stood; the People forfeited review by not seeking an immediate writ | Trial court has inherent authority to correct its own rulings; Geddes permits reconsideration where the original judge is unavailable and writ is not exclusive | Trial court properly exercised inherent authority to address the procedural wrinkle; Geddes governs and People’s initial failure to seek a writ did not bar reconsideration |
| Whether §1172.6’s “same judge” provision overrides or forecloses §170.6 challenges | The §170.6 exception after reversal should permit disqualification despite §1172.6 language | §1172.6’s directive that the sentencing judge rule on the petition (if available) supports treating §1172.6 proceedings as non‑new‑trials; the statutes do not conflict | The court declines to hold §1172.6 trumps §170.6; but the presence of a same‑judge rule in §1172.6 supports the conclusion that §1172.6 proceedings are not “new trials” |
| Policy: whether reversal‑related bias concerns justify allowing §170.6 challenges after §1172.6 remand | A judge reversed on a §1172.6 decision might have unconscious bias against the successful appellant, so the §170.6 exception should apply | Peracchi and legislative history limit the §170.6 post‑reversal exception to true new trials; protecting against every possible bias does not override statutory limits | Policy considerations do not overcome the statutory construction: the post‑reversal §170.6 exception is limited to actual new trials |
Key Cases Cited
- Geddes v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.App.4th 417 (discusses authority to revisit §170.6 rulings when original judge is unavailable)
- Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1245 (defines “new trial” for disqualification purposes by reference to Penal Code; resentencing ≠ new trial)
- Maas v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 962 (continuation rule: cannot peremptorily disqualify judge who participated in underlying action)
- People v. Superior Court (Jimenez), 28 Cal.4th 798 (special statutory scheme requiring same judge controls general disqualification rule in that context)
- Micro/Vest Corp. v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.3d 1085 (distinguishable precedent on one judge reviewing another’s §170.6 rulings)
- Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (trial court’s inherent authority to reconsider rulings)
- Estrada v. Superior Court, 93 Cal.App.5th 915 (recent decision holding §1172.6(d)(3) hearing is not a “new trial” under §170.6)