Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Nos. FVI023061 & MVI044523
Doreen B. Boxer, Public Defender, Lauri Ferguson, Assistant Public Defender, and Stephan J. Willms, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the record, and have invited a response from both the real party in interest and the respondent court. None has been received. We consider it appropriate to treat the failure to respond as an implicit concession that relief be granted, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
DISCUSSION
As respondent and real party in interest did not take the opportunity to inform this court of the nature of the underlying dispute, we are left with a record in which the named “real party in interest, ” in fact the defendant/probationer below, has solicited the assistance of the public defender in obtaining relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4. There is no indication that “real party in interest” is not indigent and not entitled to the assistance of appointed or public counsel if necessary. There appears to be no person challenging the right of the public defender other than respondent court, which, as noted, did not respond to the petition.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to recognize petitioner as “real party in interest’s” attorney in any subsequent proceedings in this matter unless or until new information or changed circumstances alters the legal situation.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
The previously ordered stay is lifted.
In light of real party in interest’s and respondent’s failure to respond, this order shall be final forthwith.
We concur: HOLLENHORST J., KING J.