Thomas Ramirez (Ramirez) petitions for a writ of habeas corpus relieving him of

any further probationary supervision in People v. Ramirez, case number 95M05326,

involving a misdemeanor.

The essential issue presented is whether, in the wake of court unification, a habeas

petition arising out of a misdemeanor case may be filed directly in the court of appeal.

Ramirez contends his petition is properly before this court because there is now but one

trial court, the superior court, and it is impermissible for one superior court judge to

overrule the decision of another superior court judge.

3. Department 70 of the Los Angeles Superior Court has jurisdiction to entertain

Ramirez’s habeas petition.

Having determined the superior court has original jurisdiction in habeas

proceedings, the remaining issue is the Los Angeles Superior Court’s assignment of such

petitions within the court. As indicated, article VI, section 10 of the California

Constitution provides in relevant part: "The appellate division of the superior court has

original jurisdiction in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus,

certiorari, and prohibition directed to the superior court in causes subject to its appellate

jurisdiction. [¶] Superior courts have original jurisdiction in all other causes except

those given by statute to other trial courts."

Ramirez contends the omission of a reference to habeas corpus petitions in the list

of proceedings which may be heard in the appellate division of the superior court bars the

appellate division’s consideration of habeas corpus petitions arising in misdemeanor

cases. He further asserts that hearing a habeas petition in Department 70 of the Los

Angeles Superior Court, by one of the judges also assigned to the appellate division, is

nothing more than one superior court judge reviewing a decision made by another

superior court judge. The latter argument is unavailing.

As discussed, article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution, expressly

confers upon the superior courts, and their judges, original jurisdiction in habeas corpus

proceedings. At the same time, the appellate division of the superior court is not vested

with original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. Rather, original jurisdiction in

10

habeas matters is given to "superior courts, and their judges." (Cal. Const., art. VI,

section 10.)

The Los Angeles Superior Court has adhered to this distinction in its assignment

of misdemeanor habeas petitions. The superior courts are authorized to adopt local rules

"to expedite and faciliate the business of the court." (Code Civ. Proc., § 575.1, subd. (a);

see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 981.) The Los Angeles Superior Court had adopted such

local rules pertaining to the distribution of court business. (L.A. Super. Ct., Local Rules,

ch. 2.) Rule 2.5(a) thereof provides: "(1) Appellate Department. All appeals from

judgments entered by any Municipal Court in Los Angeles County (except appeals from

small claims judgments) must be heard in the Appellate Department of the Superior

Court in the Central District, Room 607. . . . [¶] (2) Department 70. Each judge assigned

to the Appellate Department is also assigned to Department 70 of the Central District,

Room 607. The following matters are assigned to the judges in Department 70 and are

heard by one judge on a rotating basis: [¶] (a) Writs of Habeas Corpus for detention

arising out of a misdemeanor." (Italics added.) 3

The appellate division of the superior court consists of three-judge appellate

panels. (Code Civ. Proc., § 77, subd. (b).) In functioning as an appellate court, the

appellate division sits as a three-judge court to hear and decide cases. In contrast,

pursuant to the local rules, Department 70 is a separate one-judge department of the Los

Angeles Superior Court staffed on a rotating basis by one of the appellate division judges

11

and charged with handling misdemeanor habeas petitions and certain other writ matters.

(L.A. Super. Ct., Local Rule 2.5(a).) 4 Thus, the Los Angeles Superior Court has not

assigned habeas petitions to its appellate division. The Los Angeles Superior Court’s

assignment of habeas petitions arising out of misdemeanors to Department 70 of the court

comports with article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution, which vests superior

courts and their judges with original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. Hence,

Department 70 is the appropriate forum for Ramirez’s petition.

Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to deny Ramirez’s petition on the ground

it was not presented in the superior court in the first instance. ( In re Hillery, supra, 202

Cal.App.2d at p. 294; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 56(a)(1).) 5

3 Rule 2.5 has not yet been revised in the wake of court unification. However, we

4 Department 70’s separate status, standing apart from the appellate division, is also

5 We note that California Constitution, article 6, section 4, states in relevant part:

In re THOMAS RAMIREZ, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

on1

Habeas Corpus.