Judge overrules Acosta's demurrer; VOP hearing on for review in May

 

This morning local attorney Michael Acosta's 2020 case was on for VOP hearing and demurrer. Last month, Mendocino Judge Ann Moorman summarily revoked Acosta's probation. This means the conditions of probation stay in effect, but it stops the clock running on the probation period. 

Today, Retired Visting Judge Leonard LaCasse  told Deputy DA Alex Grotewohl there was no answer filed by the DA's office. Where was Deputy DA Ian Harris who prosecuted this case?

Judge overruled the demurrer. VOP revocation  hearing set for a review on 5/7/24.

After court, I received an email from Acosta. You can read and compare it to the court minutes. There are atleast two obvious errors. As for Acosta's challenging Judge LaCasse on the law; I will wait and see what the numerous California attorneys who read my blog have to say.

The error of Judge LaCasse's name is probably a typo by Acosta. It was Judge Moorman who summarily revoked probation. In my last post, there are court minutes and not Judge Kaleb Cockrum as inferred by Acosta. His warrant is not in public or e court records and he did not provide me with that evidence.

3/7/24:

Acosta's email:

This morning at the hearing on my demurrer to the petition for revocation of my misdemeanor probation, visiting Judge LaCoste found that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, due to the pendency of my appeal.  Despite this ruling, Judge LaCoste proceeded to overrule my demurrer.  To overrule a demurrer, the Court must have jurisdiction. Ironically, the first of the enumerated grounds for sustaining a demurrer in California under California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 (which is also applicable to criminal demurrers through caselaw), is:

" (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading"

If the Court has no jurisdiction, then the demurrer must be sustained, not overruled. 

Furthermore, the Court mentioned that the entirety of the Humboldt County bench was recused in my matter, yet the Court admitted on record that Judge Cockrum had summarily revoked my probation and issued a warrant without prior notice or hearing. The clerk's record reflects that Judge Cockrum took this action long after his self-disqualification in the matter.

In fact, C.C.P. section 170 requires that in the case of an entire County judicial bench being disqualified, only the Chairperson of the Judicial Council (who is also the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the California Constitution) may assign a judge to such a case; hence, the assignment of First Appellate Justice Stuart R. Pollak to my case for all purposes.  I still have the formal notice from Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (whom I remember was just entering Stanford Law School when I was graduating in '94 ) which formally assigned Justice Pollak for all purposes to my case. I have not since then received a similar notice from the Chief Justice regarding any subsequent assignment of Judge LaCoste.  

These actions by Judge Cockrum and Judge LaCoste further bring into question the validity of the Court's recent proceedings in my matter.  Where does this leave my tattered and war-torn case?  Substantially messier and more time-consuming, over something that is now only a misdemeanor probation revocation issue.  I hope the DA's office is almost as sick of this case as I am.  But for now, it looks like I will be filing a second appeal, unfortunately.

Previous posts:

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2024/02/judge-moorman-summarily-revoked-acostas.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2024/02/michael-acosta-conviction-submitted-to.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2024/01/today-in-fact-right-now-as-we-speak-i.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/12/when-your-attorney-and-partner-also-has.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/12/will-michael-acostas-second-appeal-for.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/12/acosta-calls-vop-petition-another-witch.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/12/da-files-petition-to-revoke-michael.html?m=1

**I am not linking all the posts on this 2020 case because I have done extensive, regular and exclusive coverage and all posts can be accessed via the search feature on the blog**