When the previous head of the Public Defender's Office down here in San Diego left the job, there was an opening, and in an unusual move, a sitting judge -- Judge Washington -- applied for the position.
But there is a statute (Government Code Section 27701) -- originally enacted in 1921, and unchanged since 1947 -- that provides: “A person is not eligible to the office of public defender unless he has been a practicing attorney in all of the courts of the State for at least the year preceding the date of his election or appointment.”
Judge Washington was a long-time public defender before he was appointed to the bench, but since he's now a judge, he wasn't a practicing public defender during "the year preceding the date of his election or appointment.” So he couldn't be appointed.
So he sued, claiming that's not what the statute means.
The trial court ruled against him, and today, the Court of Appeal affirms. The statute's unambiguous. It means what it says.
I've now read the statute, as have you. Yep. That's what it says.
It may be a silly law. But there are lots of silly laws, and ones passed in 1921 are definitely no exception.
Sorry about that. But, yeah, the statute applies.
On the upside, at least Judge Washington can now go back to hearing criminal rather than civil cases. (He was reassigned to civil ones since he had a conflict hearing cases brought by the public defender's office while he was seeking to be its head.)
