unsuccessful peremptory challenge in California

2024The Supreme Court has made clear “that section 170.3(d) prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge.” (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 268 .) Section 170.3, subdivision (d) provides: “The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding.

2023Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d)2 provides, in relevant part: “The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding.” This means section 170.3, subdivision (d) “prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge motion.” (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276 .) We lack the power to review on appeal an order the Legislature has made nonappealable.

1993Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d), provides, “The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision . . . .” Our Supreme Court in People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ] concluded that this statute “prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge motion.” (Accord, People v. Broxson (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 977,

1993Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d), provides, “The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision . . . .” Our Supreme Court in People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ] concluded that this statute “prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge motion.” (Accord, People v. Broxson (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 977,

2025Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 522 [expedited writ procedure is the exclusive means for reviewing an unsuccessful peremptory challenge].) 3.

2021The petition for the writ shall be filed and served within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order determining the question of disqualification.” (Italics added.) The statute’s use of the word “only” means the “expedited [writ] procedure is the exclusive means for reviewing an unsuccessful peremptory challenge filed under section 170.6.” (People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 522 .) Foster did not file a writ of mandate seeking review of the August 2018 order denying his Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge.

2014Section 170.3(d) provides: ‘The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision and only by the parties to the proceeding.’ (§ 170.3(d); see Stats. 1984, ch. 1555, § 1 et seq., pp. 5479-5484.)” (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 269 .) “[The issue is] whether a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d) (footnote omitted) . . . is the exclusive means by which a party may

2014Section 170.3(d) provides: ‘The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision and only by the parties to the proceeding.’ (§ 170.3(d); see Stats. 1984, ch. 1555, § 1 et seq., pp. 5479-5484.)” (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 269 .) “[The issue is] whether a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d) (footnote omitted) . . . is the exclusive means by which a party may

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge].) 4 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 5 “Juvenile courts, relying on the Marsden model, have permitted the parents, who have a statutory and a due process right to competent counsel, to air their complaints about appointed counsel and request new counsel be appointed. (§ 317.5; In re James S. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, fn. 13 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].)” (In re V.V. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge].) 4 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 5 “Juvenile courts, relying on the Marsden model, have permitted the parents, who have a statutory and a due process right to competent counsel, to air their complaints about appointed counsel and request new counsel be appointed. (§ 317.5; In re James S. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, fn. 13 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].)” (In re V.V. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge].) 4 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 5 “Juvenile courts, relying on the Marsden model, have permitted the parents, who have a statutory and a due process right to competent counsel, to air their complaints about appointed counsel and request new counsel be appointed. (§ 317.5; In re James S. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, fn. 13 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].)” (In re V.V. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge].) 4 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 5 “Juvenile courts, relying on the Marsden model, have permitted the parents, who have a statutory and a due process right to competent counsel, to air their complaints about appointed counsel and request new counsel be appointed. (§ 317.5; In re James S. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, fn. 13 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].)” (In re V.V. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge].) 4 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 5 “Juvenile courts, relying on the Marsden model, have permitted the parents, who have a statutory and a due process right to competent counsel, to air their complaints about appointed counsel and request new counsel be appointed. (§ 317.5; In re James S. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, fn. 13 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].)” (In re V.V. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge].) 4 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 5 “Juvenile courts, relying on the Marsden model, have permitted the parents, who have a statutory and a due process right to competent counsel, to air their complaints about appointed counsel and request new counsel be appointed. (§ 317.5; In re James S. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 930, 935, fn. 13 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].)” (In re V.V. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.3

1992On October 21, 1991, the People timely filed the instant petition seeking extraordinary relief, “the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge motion.” (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ]; accord, People v. Broxson (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 977, 979 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 917 ]; Guedalia v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 99 ].) On October 22, 1991, we stayed trial of the underlying proceeding pending receipt of opposition and further order of this court, and we advised the parties that we were c

1992On October 21, 1991, the People timely filed the instant petition seeking extraordinary relief, “the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge motion.” (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ]; accord, People v. Broxson (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 977, 979 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 917 ]; Guedalia v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 99 ].) On October 22, 1991, we stayed trial of the underlying proceeding pending receipt of opposition and further order of this court, and we advised the parties that we were c