Jones v. Superior Court (3rd Dist.) CCP 170.6's "One Judge Rule" Applies Nowhere.

July 21, 2015, Mr. Jones was charged via complaint with violating H&S 11370.6, possessing over 100,000 dollars with the intent to buy marijuana.  When accepting the complaint for filing, the Nevada County court clerk stamped upon the complaint a notice that the case was being assigned for all purposes to Judge Tamietti, the sole judge assigned to the Truckee courthouse.

The Nevada County DA sent a letter to Jones, who lives in Georgia, notifying him to appear in Truckee on August 10, 2016, for arraignment.  On August 10, Jones, having filed a PC 977 waiver, appeared in Truckee through his lawyer, who had previously received an unstamped (important, as we'll soon see) copy of the complaint from the DA.  Arraignment was continued to September 15, at which time Jones entered a not guilty plea through his attorney, but did not receive a file-stamped copy of the complaint.  September 16, Jones' lawyer decided to obtain a stamped copy of the complaint from the court clerk and saw the "assigned for all purposes" stamp.  September 17, Jones' lawyer filed a peremptory judicial challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.  Judge Tamietti denied the petition as untimely.  Jones then petitioned the Third District for a writ of mandate.

The Third District grants the petition and issues orders for Judge Tamietti to vacate the previous denial and issue a new order granting Jones' 170.6.

The issue is the applicable time limit for filing a 170.6 petition.  Section 170.6 has a number of different time limits depending upon the situation.  The two time limits at issue here are the "one judge" limit, and the "all purposes" limit.  Under the "one judge" rule, if the case is in a court that is authorized to have no more than one judge, the time limit for filing a 170.6 petition is 30 days from the time the party first appears.  The "all purposes" rule applies when a case is assigned to a specific judge for all purposes, and imposes a time limit of 10 days from the latter of [1] the date notice is provided that the case is assigned to a particular judge or [2] the date the party first appears.  

Jones argues the "all purposes" rule applies and that since he was first notified of the assignment on September 16, his September 17 petition was within 10 days of notice.  The state argues the "one judge" rule applies because Judge Tamietti is the only judge assigned to the Truckee division of the Nevada County Superior Court, meaning a 30 day deadline started on August 10 and had passed on September 17.  

The panel sides with Jones.  In its textual analysis, the panel notes 170.6 states the 30 day rule applies when a "court is authorized to have no more than one judge" and that it is only the California Government Code that may authorize judges.  (Gov. Code, §§ 69580-69611).  Since Government Code section 69590.7 provides that “[i]n the County of Nevada there are six judges of the superior court[]", it is the "all purposes" rule that controls.  It is of no consequence that zero counties currently have only one judge authorized (meaning attorneys and judges now have one less rule about which to fret). 

As a back up argument, the state argues that Jones had received constructive notice of the all purposes assignment prior to September 16, 2015.  To which the panel responds that the clock starts to tick only upon actual notice, which occured on September 16.  

So either another judge will have to travel to the Truckee courthouse or Jones will have to travel to another Nevada County courthouse, which probably wont seem that onerous after coming all the way from Georgia.