Opinion ID: 2581358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defense Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge

Text: Before trial, defendant moved unsuccessfully to disqualify the trial judge initially assigned to this case, and the motion was heard by a jurist from another county. Defendant made the motion on the basis that the judge had had a serious dating relationship with an employee of the district attorney's office. The motion was brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(iii), which authorizes recusal if a person aware of the facts might doubt the judge's impartiality. Defendant argues that his motion was erroneously denied, requiring him to exercise his single peremptory challenge (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6) against the assigned judge, which effectively deprived him of his statutory right to one peremptory challenge, and violated his due process right to an impartial trial judge, a right that defendant argues is protected by a peremptory challenge. We agree with the Attorney General that defendant has forfeited any complaint about the statutory propriety of the disqualification ruling, because such an order must be challenged within 10 days by a petition for mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d); People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 811, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) Defendant may, however, raise on appeal his constitutionally based claim of judicial bias. ( People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 363, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 621, 133 P.3d 534; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 652 & fn. 5, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573, 941 P.2d 752.) In any event, we reject defendant's due process claim that he was denied an impartial judge. The challenged judge did not preside over defendant's trial. Nor has defendant raised any claim, here or below, that Judge Browning, who did preside, was biased.