Court Opinion

ID: 9744980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:27:24.323679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:54.490253
License: Public Domain

*606DAVIS, J.
I concur.
“I do not rule Russia; ten thousand clerks do.” (Nicholas I (1796-1855).)
My colleague has done an admirable job exposing the flaws in the published version of People v. Rhodes (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 470 [263 Cal.Rptr. 603]. As one of the participating justices in Rhodes, it is only fitting that I assume the burden of recounting how the published version of Rhodes has miraculously created a life for itself despite this court’s best efforts to put a stake through its heart.
While it is unfortunately true that my two former colleagues and I initially filed the published version of Rhodes, all three of us recognized the error of our ways, granted Mr. Rhodes a rehearing, and issued a new, nonpublished opinion that in no way adopted the language we take issue with today. (People v. Rhodes (Feb. 28, 1990) C004019.) In such circumstances the publisher is normally notified of the court action and the superseded opinion which was initially designated for publication is never published in the official reports.
Alas, while we wearers of the robe had a great deal of authority (in contrast to power) over the matter of publication, it was our normally faultless clerical staff that had the final word regarding whether Rhodes would be published and what version it would appear in. Thus Rhodes has the distinction of being the only published opinion I am aware of that not only rightly receives no respect from other appellate courts, but also is saddled with the indignity of having no significance to the parties themselves. May it now rest in peace.