Jamie K. v. Superior Court
Filed 5/2/06 Jamie K. v. Superior Court CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| JAMIE K., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
C051983
(Super. Ct. No. J056758)
|
Petitioner Jamie K., who is the subject of a juvenile court petition filed by the People (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), petitions this court for a writ of mandate/prohibition, to require the juvenile court to accept his peremptory challenge to Judge Barbara Kronlund, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.[1] The trial court declined to accept the peremptory challenge pending our decision in a companion case involving Jamie K. (No. C051071), which we consolidated with another case, Daniel V. v. Superior Court (2006) __ Cal.App.4th __, Nos. C050566/C051071, and which we file the same date as the instant opinion, on May 2, 2006. In Daniel V., supra, we held valid a peremptory challenge made by Jamie K. to Judge Kronlund. We held the San Joaquin County juvenile court's informal practice of having a deputy court clerk assign cases â€
