People v. Tijerina
459 P.2d 680, 1 Cal. 3d 41, 81 Cal. Rptr. 264 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article VI, section 21 of the California Constitution, a stipulation of the parties litigant is a mandatory prerequisite for a court commissioner or any other member of the bar to act as a temporary judge in a cause.
Facts:
- On March 28, 1966, defendant Tijerina pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon.
- The court sentenced Tijerina to prison but suspended the sentence, placing him on probation for two years.
- On March 27, 1967, while on probation, Tijerina was apprehended after stealing a large box of merchandise from the Broadway Department Store.
- On October 13, 1967, while still on probation, Tijerina was apprehended after taking a cashmere coat from a pile of merchandise inside the J. W. Robinson Department Store.
- The proceedings for the two theft charges were heard by a court commissioner acting as a temporary judge.
- During these proceedings, the commissioner also considered Tijerina's prior assault case and revoked his probation.
- Tijerina and the state had not entered into a stipulation authorizing the commissioner to act as a temporary judge in the assault case where probation was revoked.
Procedural Posture:
- In case No. 307540, Tijerina was convicted of assault and placed on probation by the trial court.
- In separate cases (No. A-220328 and No. A-226235), Tijerina was charged with theft.
- Tijerina stipulated that a court commissioner could act as a temporary judge in the two theft cases.
- The court commissioner found Tijerina guilty in both theft cases.
- In a subsequent hearing, the same court commissioner, acting without a new stipulation for case No. 307540, revoked Tijerina's probation from the prior assault conviction.
- Tijerina appealed the order revoking his probation to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court commissioner have the authority to act as a temporary judge and issue a binding order, such as revoking probation, without a stipulation from the parties litigant in that specific case?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, C. J.
No. A court commissioner lacks authority to act as a temporary judge without a stipulation from the parties, and any orders made in the absence of such a stipulation are void. The California Constitution (Art. VI, § 21) explicitly requires a 'stipulation of the parties litigant' before a cause may be tried by a temporary judge. This constitutional requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be overridden by statute or court rule. Although Code of Civil Procedure section 259a and California Rule of Court 244 set forth procedures for appointing commissioners as temporary judges, they do not eliminate the foundational constitutional prerequisite of party consent. A commissioner is only 'otherwise qualified to act' once the parties have stipulated. Because there was no stipulation in the probation revocation matter, the commissioner had no power to act, and the order revoking probation is reversed.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that the consent of the litigants is a non-waivable, constitutional prerequisite for a non-judge, such as a court commissioner, to exercise judicial power as a temporary judge. It clarifies the hierarchy between the state constitution and procedural statutes, affirming that statutory schemes authorizing temporary judges are subordinate to the constitutional requirement of a stipulation. This holding protects the fundamental right of litigants to have their cases heard by a constitutionally proper judicial officer and prevents courts from assigning judicial duties to commissioners for administrative convenience without the parties' express consent.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Tijerina