Court Opinion

ID: 9885170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:35:06.408561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:38.869954
License: Public Domain

RODOWSKY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that Judge Fader’s denial of Doering’s motion that Judge Fader be the trial judge presents “a unique set of facts, involving a decision that directly affects the proper conduct of a sentencing proceeding in a capital case.” Conduct of the new sentencing proceeding before some judge other than Judge Fader cannot justify mandamus, because no litigant has the right to select the presiding judge for a newly assigned matter. If Judge Fader has given an invalid excuse for non-compliance with the administrative judge’s case assignment, it is an administrative matter that creates no right in Doering to appellate intervention at this stage.