Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCP00337, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 24PSCP00337    Hearing Date: September 9, 2024    Dept: G

Petitioner Dean Himbler Aviles’s Petition for Judicial Review

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Dean Himbler Aviles’s Petition for Judicial Review is DENIED with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2024, Petitioner Dean Himbler Aviles filed a petition for judicial review that seeks to charge Respondent Maria Yesenia Valenzuela for one count of violating Penal Code section 278.5.

A hearing on the present petition is set for September 9, 2024.

ANALYSIS

In a petition brought pursuant to Penal Code section 951, Aviles alleges Valenzuela has committed a criminal violation of Penal Code section 278.5. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Aviles’s petition with prejudice.

In California, “[t]he parties to a criminal action are the People, in whose sovereign name it is prosecuted, and the person accused [Citations]; the victim of the crime is not a party [Citation]. The prosecution of criminal offenses on behalf of the People is the sole responsibility of the public prosecutor. [Citations.] The prosecutor ordinarily has sole discretion to determine whom to charge, what charges to file and pursue, and what punishment to seek. [Citations.] No private citizen, however personally aggrieved, may institute criminal proceedings independently [Citation] and the prosecutor's own discretion is not subject to judicial control at the behest of persons other than the accused.” (Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 451.)

Here, Aviles, a private citizen, lacks the authority to initiate criminal prosecutions and/or proceedings pursuant to California law. Accordingly, Aviles’s petition is DENIED with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Aviles’s petition is DENIED with prejudice.