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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELLATE 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, and 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 resolution 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 case is governed by Solano v. Superior Court (People) (2009) 169 

Cal.App.4th 1361, and we see no reason to disagree with that decision. 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-file” in the first instance, the People must 

give up their right under Penal Code section 739 to obtain, in essence, a superior court 

review of the magistrate’s refusal 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 Penal Code section 872 is to endorse its 

findings of probable cause on the complaint. According to Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 707, subdivision (d)(4), the matter then proceeds “according to the laws 

applicable to a criminal case,” which is what the People did here. 

 We also decline to find that the People waived their right to file an information in 

the superior court by failing to object at the time of the order of remand, or by attempting 
3

to protect the public and keep real party in interest in custody 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 County to arraign real 

party on the information filed by petitioner. Proceedings 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 court, together with proof of 

service on all parties. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

RAMIREZ 

 P. J. 

We concur: 

KING 

 J. 

CODRINGTON 

 J.