People v. Wolf, 031618 SUPAD, CA271353

Docket Nº:CA271353, CA271362
Opinion Judge:CHARLES R. GILL, Presiding Judge
Party Name:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s), v. JEFFREY WOLF, Defendant(s) and Appellant(s). THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s), v. THOMAS VARUOLO, Defendant(s) and Appellant(s).
Attorney:Mara Elliot, City Attorney, Jonathan Lapin, Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Michael Fremont, for Defendant and Appellant.
Judge Panel:I concur. GALE E. KANESHIRO Judge, Appellate Division SHORE, J., concurring: I concur.
Case Date:March 16, 2018
Court:Superior Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s),

v.

JEFFREY WOLF, Defendant(s) and Appellant(s).

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s),

v.

THOMAS VARUOLO, Defendant(s) and Appellant(s).

CA271353, CA271362

Superior Court of California, Appellate Division, San Diego

March 16, 2018

Central Division, Trial Court Case Nos. M214209, M216752

Mara Elliot, City Attorney, Jonathan Lapin, Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael Fremont, for Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION

CHARLES R. GILL, Presiding Judge

APPEAL from the denials of demurrers, granting of motion to quash subpoenas, and denying motions to dismiss on behalf of Jeffrey Wolf and Thomas Varuolo, after hearings by the Superior Court, San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Kenneth K. So, David M. Gill, Joan P. Weber, Lorna A. Alksne, and Albert T. Harutunian, III, Judges. Following argument on March 15, 2018, this consolidated matter was taken under submission.

AFFIRMED.

Appellants argue the San Diego County District Attorney has no authority to deputize City of San Diego Deputy City Attorneys to prosecute misdemeanors that occurred in the City of Poway and filed in the Central (downtown San Diego) Division of the Superior Court. Appellants also argue City of San Diego Deputy City Attorneys have no authority to prosecute misdemeanor offenses that occurred outside the boundaries of the City of San Diego. These arguments might be appropriate before applicable legislative or executive branches of government, but they are not relevant in the context of Mr. Wolf's or Mr. Varuolo's cases. Furthermore, Appellants lack standing to challenge the authority of the prosecuting agency in these criminal cases.

Quo warranto is the specific action by which one challenges “any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully hold or exercises any public office….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 803.) It is the exclusive remedy in cases where it is available. (Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 633.) District Attorneys and City Attorneys are public officers. (Coulter v. Pool (1921) 187 Cal. 181, 187.) Title to an office cannot be tried by mandamus, injunction...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP