1 Filed 5/28/14 P. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Petitioner,

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; BRANDON SKAGGS, Real Party in Interest. E060905 (Super.Ct.Nos. FVI1401006 & J254119)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Eric M. Nakata and Larry W. Allen, Judges. Granted. Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, and Brent J. Schultze, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.2 Friedman, Gebbie, Cazares, & Gilleece, a nd Robert Friedman for Real Party in

Interest.

DISCUSSION

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party

in interest. We have determined that reso lution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. ( Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

In our view the cas e is governed by Solano v. Superior Court (People) (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1361, and we see no reason to disa gree with that decisi on. The procedural differences are immaterial and there is nothing in the statutes that supports real party in interest’s argument that by choosing to “adult-f ile” in the first instan ce, the People must give up their right under Penal Code section 739 to obtain, in essence, a superior court review of the magistrate’s refu sal to issue a holding order as to a specific charge. Nor do we find the argument that the magistrate had no power to “certify” the case to adult court relevant; the magistrate’s only duty under Pe nal Code section 872 is to endorse its findings of probable cause on th e complaint. Acco rding to Welfare a nd Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(4), the matter then proceeds “according to the laws applicable to a criminal case,” wh ich is what the People did here. We also decline to find that the People waiv ed their right to file an information in the superior court by failing to object at the ti me of the order of remand, or by attempting3 to protect the public and keep real party in interest in cust ody by filing a juvenile petition while this petition was contemplated.

DISPOSITION Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino Coun ty to arraign real party on the information file d by petitioner. Procee dings in the juvenile court shall remain stayed, pursuant to the order of this court dated April 15, 2014, pending resolution of the criminal proceedings. Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this c ourt, together with proof of service on all parties.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:

KING J.

CODRINGTON J.