STARK v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY
Filed 6/15/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sutter)
----
| ROBERT E. STARK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
C051073, C051074
(Super. Ct. Nos. CRMS051001, CRMS051031)
|
| RONDA G. PUTNAM, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUTTER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
C051075
(Super. Ct. No. CRMS051030)
|
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Ted H. Hansen, Judge. Peremptory writ issued.
Rothschild, Wishek, Chastaine & Sands, M. Bradley Wishek; Marilyn Fisher, for Petitioner Robert E. Stark.
Blackmon & Associates, Clyde M. Blackmon, Melinda J. Nye; Marilyn Fisher, for Petitioner Ronda Putman.
No appearance for Respondent.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Janet Neeley, Supervising Deputies Attorney General, Clifford E. Zall, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest.
This writ proceeding arises out of a turf battle between some of the elected officials in Sutter County (the County) over accounting matters. That battle has resulted in a 13-count criminal indictment against the auditor-controller of the County, Robert E. Stark, as well as accusations under Government Code section 3060 against both Stark and his assistant, Ronda G. Putman, seeking to remove them from office for willful misconduct.
Stark and Putman moved to set aside the grand jury's indictment and accusations on various grounds. For the most part, the superior court denied those motions. As will be shown, we conclude the superior court erred when it refused to set aside some of the criminal charges against Stark and the accusation against Putman. Otherwise, however, the superior court was correct. We will issue a peremptory writ of mandate to correct the court's errors and otherwise allow the matter to proceed against Stark.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
What follows is a general overview of the factual and procedural background of this writ proceeding. Further detail of the underlying facts is set forth below in the discussion section.[1] Stark has been the auditor-controller of the County since 1985.
In the fall of 2004, Larry Combs, the county administrative officer (who is appointed by the board of supervisors to manage the County), became aware that Stark was â€
