Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
San Diego County Super. Ct. No. JCM209154
McCONNELL, P. J.
PROCEEDINGS in mandate after superior court denied peremptory challenge, Laura H. Parsky, Judge. Petition granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2007, the district attorney filed a Penal Code section 602 petition alleging 17-year-old D.R. had falsely identified himself to a police officer and committed petty theft. D.R. denied all counts at the August 3 detention hearing in Department 8 before Judge Bruce-Lyle. He admitted the false identification count at the August 14 readiness hearing before Judge Bruce-Lyle, and the judge found a factual basis for the admission, sustained the petition, and dismissed the petty theft count. At the August 28 disposition hearing, Judge Bruce-Lyle imposed conditions of probation on D.R. and ordered him to return for a review hearing the following year at 8 a.m. on August 27, 2008, in Department 8.
Although counsel was present for the August 27, 2008, review hearing in Department 8, D.R. was not present, and Judge Parsky issued a bench warrant for his arrest. On October 29 D.R. appeared in custody in Department 8 before Judge Parsky and filed a peremptory challenge at the start of the hearing. The judge denied the challenge as untimely and proceeded with the hearing.
D.R. filed this petition asserting the challenge was timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and San Diego Superior Court, Local Rule 6.9.3 because it was brought at his first appearance before Judge Parsky.
We asked the People for an informal response to the petition. The People concede the challenge was timely, and D.R. is entitled to relief. In light of the concession, we conclude no useful purpose could reasonably be served by issuance of an order to show cause or plenary consideration of the matter. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see also People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.)
DISPOSITION
Let a writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its October 29, 2008, order denying the challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 to Judge Parsky, and enter a new order granting the challenge. This opinion is final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)
WE CONCUR: BENKE, J., O'ROURKE, J.