THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALMA MAE HULL, Defendant and Appellant, 1 Cal. 4th 266

Opinion PANELLI, J. We granted review to determine whether a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure

section 170.3, subdivision (d) (hereafter

section 170.3(d)) is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge. (§ 170.6.) We conclude, as did the Court of Appeal in this case, that

section 170.3(

d) prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge. Facts Petitioner Alma Mae Hull (Hull) was charged by information with the sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352). She waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. Jury trial was set for October 16, 1989, at a pretrial conference held before Judge Pierson. Later, the case was assigned to Judge Stone’s courtroom. However, after Presiding Judge Cantwell granted a continuance, another pretrial conference was set for October 26, 1989, and the trial was reset for October 30, 1989.

At the second pretrial conference, held before Judge Azevedo, the trial date of October 30 was confirmed. Although Hull’s trial counsel was not present at this pretrial conference, Hull herself was present. On Friday, October 27, 1989, Judge Cantwell presided over another “department setting conference.” As a result of this conference, the case was assigned to Judge Pierson’s courtroom for trial. Neither Hull nor her trial counsel was present. Subsequently, on Monday, October 30, Hull filed a peremptory challenge before Presiding Judge Cantwell, pursuant to

section 170.6, to disqualify Judge Pierson. Judge Cantwell denied the motion as untimely. Hull waived her right to a jury trial and proceeded to trial before Judge Pierson. Judge Pierson found Hull guilty and also found true the alleged prior conviction. The judge also found that Hull was on her own recognizance pending trial on still another charge at the time of the offense. On November 27,1989, Hull was sentenced to a total term of six years and four months. This term was to run consecutively to the sentence already imposed for Hull’s prior offense.

Hull filed an appeal from the judgment of conviction that raised only the denial of her peremptory challenge motion. The Court of Appeal held that an order denying a peremptory challenge of a trial judge is not an appealable order and hence was not re viewable on appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Discussion Hull contends that the Court of Appeal erred in holding that review of a denial of a peremptory challenge under

section 170.6 was subject to the provisions of

section 170.3(d). We disagree.

Chapter 3 of title 2 of

part 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, entitled “Disqualification of Judges,” prescribes the means by which a party may challenge an assigned judge “for cause” (§ 170.1) or may exercise a peremptory challenge against the judge (§ 170.6). In 1984, as part of a substantial overhaul of the provisions of

part 1, title 2,

chapter 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Legislature enacted

section 170.3(

d) pertaining to appellate review of disqualification motions.

Section 170.3(

d) provides: “The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appeal-able order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision and only by the parties to the proceeding.” (§ 170.3(d); see Stats. 1984, ch. 1555, § 1 et seq., pp. 5479-5484.) A split of authority has developed in the Courts of Appeal as to whether

section 170.3(

d) applies to both challenges for cause and peremptory challenges, or only to challenges for cause. The Court of Appeal in People v. Jenkins (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 394 [241 Cal.Rptr. 827] (hereafter Jenkins) addressed challenges for cause and held that

section 170.3(

d) makes mandamus the sole appellate remedy for review of an order denying a motion to disqualify a judge for cause. (196 Cal.App.3d at pp. 403-404.) According to the court, “[t]he unambiguous language of [section 170.3(d)] indicates that an order determining disqualification is reviewable ‘only’ by writ, thereby precluding review on appeal from a judgment. The Legislature obviously opted for speedy review of a disqualification ruling, since permitting that ruling to be attacked later on appeal of the judgment could invalidate every ruling made by the trial court judge after the disqualification motion was denied.” (Ibid.) The Jenkins court did not address

section 170.3(d)’s applicability to peremptory challenges under

section 170.6. In Woodman v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 407 [241 Cal.Rptr. 818] (hereafter Woodman), the Court of Appeal specifically held that the limitation on appellate review set forth in

section 170.3(

d) applies only to challenges for cause. The Woodman court examined the legislative history of

section 170.3(

d) and concluded “that the 1984 revision of the challenge for cause statute, of which [section 170.3(d)] is part, was to have no effect on the peremptory challenge statute.” (196 Cal.App.3d at pp. 413-414.) The court reached this conclusion by relying on the statement of the Senate Final History of Senate Bill No. 1633,1983-1984 Regular Session, that “ ‘Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.6 provides for the peremptory challenge of a trial court judge. This bill would not amend that section.’ ” (196 Cal.App.3d at p. 414, italics in Woodman.) The Woodman court concluded that “the mere use of the phrase ‘disqualification of a judge’ in the time limitation provision of

section 170.3, subdivision (

d) does not evince a legislative intent that the limitation apply to all disqualification motions.” (Id. at p. 413.) Rejecting Woodman, the Court of Appeal in Guedalia v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1156 [260 Cal.Rptr. 99] (hereafter Guedalia) held that

section 170.3(d) “is the exclusive appellate remedy for any motion to disqualify a judge, including peremptory challenges pursuant to

section 170.6.” (211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1163.) The Guedalia court expressly agreed with Jenkins’s statutory analysis of

section 170.3(

d) and concluded that the analysis applies to both types of challenges. (211 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1159-1160.) Thus, Guedalia stated, “the plain language of [section 170.3(d)] does not purport to limit its applicability to challenges ‘for cause.’ To the contrary, it is broadly applicable to any ‘determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge The broad language plainly evinces an intention that [section 170.3(d)] has generic applicability to all disqualification motions, including

section 170.6 motions.” (Id. at p. 1160.) Moreover, Guedalia explained, because

section 170.3(

d) is part of the provisions of

part 1, title 2,

chapter 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals exclusively with questions of disqualification of judges, the section’s “limitation on appellate review of disqualification determinations appears fully applicable to any disqualification motions within the ambit of

chapter 3, including motions under

section 170.6.” (211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1161, italics in original.) Guedalia recognized that Woodman (supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 407) reached a contrary conclusion based on its review of

section 170.3(d)’s legislative history. However, Guedalia stated, its “review of that same legislative history . . . reveals no intention to exclude

section 170.6 determinations from the appellate review provisions enacted by the Legislature.” (211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1161, italics in original.) According to Guedalia, in excluding peremptory challenges from

section 170.3(d)’s provisions, the Woodman court adopted an incorrect and unnecessarily broad

interpretation of the legislative history. (See post, p. 275.) Finally, Guedalia explained, holding

section 170.3(d)’s 10-day limitation applicable to

section 170.6 peremptory challenges had the added benefit of promoting the twin policies advanced by

section 170.3(d)—judicial economy and elimination of the unfair manipulation of erroneously denied challenges. (211 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1162-1163.) Hull urges us to resolve the split between Guedalia and Woodman by adopting the Woodman rationale. We begin our analysis by noting that “[t]he fundamental purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. [Citations.]” (People v.

Pieters (1991) 52 Cal.3d 894, 898 [276 Cal.Rptr. 918, 802 P.2d 420].) In determining this intent, courts look first to the words contained in the statute, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 90 [260 Cal.Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222]; Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. County of Riverside (1989) 48 Cal.3d 84, 91 [255 Cal.Rptr. 670, 767 P.2d 1148].) The term “disqualification of a judge,” as used in

section 170.3(d), has a usual and ordinary significance that requires little

interpretation. To “disqualify” means “to deprive of a power, right, or privilege.” (Webster’s New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1961) p. 655.) Hence, according to the ordinary meaning of the term, a disqualified judge is deprived of the power, right or privilege to hear a case. This meaning applies whether the judge is challenged for cause or by a peremptory challenge. “The broad language plainly evinces an intention that [section 170.3(d)] has generic applicability to all disqualification motions, including

section 170.6 motions.” (Guedalia, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1160.) An examination of the framework of the disqualification statutes supports this “ordinary meaning”

interpretation. “A statute must be construed ‘in the context of the entire statutory system of which it is a part, in order to achieve harmony among the parts.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1009 [239 Cal.Rptr. 656, 741 P.2d 154].) As noted,

section 170.3(

d) is part of the provisions of title 2,

chapter 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both kinds of disqualification determinations, for cause and peremptory, are included within

chapter 3. (Guedalia, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1161-1162.) Indeed, the entire

chapter is entitled “Disqualifications of Judges.” Hull maintains that the division, article, chapter, and

section headings of the codes are not controlling, as they are not regarded as official. She argues that for-cause and peremptory challenges were simply put in the same

chapter as a matter of organizational convenience. However, it is well established that “ ‘chapter and

section headings [of

an act] may properly be considered in determining legislative intent’ [citation], and are entitled to considerable weight. [Citation.]” (American Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 829, 836 [166 Cal.Rptr. 89]; see also City of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 916, 923 [265 Cal.Rptr. 461].) The fact that

section 170.6 appears under the

chapter heading “Disqualifications of Judges” provides a strong indication that the Legislature intended a

section 170.6 peremptory challenge to constitute a “disqualification” within the meaning of

section 170.3(d). Furthermore, one of the strongest arguments against Hull’s narrow

interpretation of

section 170.3(

d) is that the public policy considerations underlying that

section are equally applicable to, and compelling for, both challenges for cause and peremptory challenges.

Section 170.3 has the dual purpose of promoting “judicial economy” and “fundamental fairness.” (Guedalia, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1162-1163.) The statute “fosters judicial economy by eliminating the waste of time and money which inheres if the litigation is permitted to continue unabated, only to be vacated on appeal because the subsequent rulings and judgment were declared ‘void’ by virtue of the erroneously denied disqualification motion.” (Id. at p. 1162.) Additionally, if a peremptory challenge were an appealable order, the party requesting such a challenge might be given an “intolerable windfall.” If the ultimate judgment were favorable to the moving party, the disqualification issue would be moot.

However, if the ultimate judgment were unfavorable, the moving party would receive a second “bite at the apple,” i.e., a second opportunity to win the merits of the case. (Guedalia, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1162.) With the enactment of

section 170.3(d), fundamental fairness is promoted by ensuring that the parties, through a petition for a writ of mandate, receive “ ‘as speedy an appellate determination as possible.’ ” (Jenkins, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 404, quoting analysis of Sen. Bill No. 598 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) provided to the Sen.

Com. on Judiciary by Professor Preble Stolz, Chair of the State Bar Committee that drafted the legislation, at p. 15.) There is no justifiable reason to presume that the Legislature would have granted a speedy and fundamentally fair avenue to litigants who make a for-cause challenge and yet require parties who make a peremptory challenge to suffer possible delay, waste, and the relitigation of issues. Hull also argues that in enacting

section 170.3(

d) the Legislature never expressed an intent “to break with its long standing practice of keeping separate the provisions for”

section 170.1 and

section 170.6. However, the Legislature’s intent can most readily and accurately be discerned by reading together all the provisions contained in

chapter 3. (See People v. Woodhead, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1009.)

Section 170.6, subdivision (7), specifically states that “[njothing in [section 170.6] shall affect or limit the provisions of

Section 170 . . . and this

section shall be construed as cumulative thereto.” (§ 170.6, subd. (7), italics added.) Accordingly, sections 170.6 and 170 were intended to be read together. Sections 170 and 170.6, when read together (see § 170.6, subd. (7)), establish that a judge who is successfully challenged under

section 170.6 is in fact “disqualified,” within the meaning of

section 170. Sections 170 and 170.3 were enacted together. (Stats. 1984, ch. 1555, §§ 2, 7, pp. 5479, 5481.) If “disqualified” has a given meaning when used in one of the statutes, it presumably shares that meaning in the other. (See International Business Machines v. State Bd. of Equalization (1980) 26 Cal.3d 923, 932 [163 Cal.Rptr. 782, 609 P.2d 1].) Consequently, because

section 170’s

interpretation of the word “disqualified” is applicable to

section 170.6 motions, it logically follows that

section 170.3(d)’s use of the word “disqualification” also encompasses

section 170.6 motions. To read the term “disqualification of a judge” in

section 170.3(

d) as applying only to challenges for cause but not to peremptory challenges could lead to absurd results. As noted by the Court of Appeal in the present case,

section 170 provides that “[a] judge has a duty to decide any proceeding in which he or she is not disqualified.” If a successful

section 170.6 peremptory challenge does not result in the “disqualification” of the judge, then that judge would continue to have a duty, under

section 170, to decide the proceeding regardless of the successful motion. This would create an absurd result that could not have been the Legislature’s intent. (See Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1392 [241 Cal.Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d 1323].) Hull echoes her theme that a judge challenged under

section 170.6 is not “disqualified,” as the term is used in

section 170.3(d), by stressing the differences between challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Hence, she argues, “a judge challenged for cause can be ‘disqualified’ only if any one or more of the grounds under

Section 170.1 are found to be true. Such a ‘disqualified’ judge has no power to further act in the proceeding except in specified exceptions listed in

Section 170.4. ... On the other hand, a judge who is challenged pursuant to

Section 170.6 is not deemed by the peremptory challenge statute to be ‘disqualified,’ nor should he or she be so described. The reason why such a judge is removed from further participation in the matter is because the explicit provisions of

Section 170.6 prohibit that judge from trying any action or hearing any matter involving contested issues of law or fact.” By purposefully avoiding using the word “disqualification” when describing the effect of

section 170.6, this argument elevates semantics over substance. A judge who is prohibited from trying any action, or hearing any matter, involving contested issues of law or fact (§ 170.6) is for all practical purposes disqualified. As indicated above, the judge is deprived of a power, right or privilege. Hull next maintains that a judge deciding a peremptory challenge does not conduct a “determination of the question of disqualification,” as the phrase is used in

section 170.3(d). Rather, she argues, “all that a judge facing a peremptory challenge has to do is the ministerial function of determining whether the challenge has the proper form, whether the challenge was presented at the proper time, and possibly whether the party or attorney is making more than one motion in any one action or special proceeding.” We disagree. The manner and time in which prejudice may be established under

section 170.6 is provided by that statute. (See § 170.6, subds. (2), (3), (5), and (6).) In certain situations, the judge may “determine” that prejudice was not properly established. For example, in the present case Hull did not timely file her motion. Hull submits an unduly narrow definition of the word “determination” by asserting that the term includes only a substantive evaluation of the merits of the motion. As stated earlier, words in a statute should be given their “usual and ordinary meaning.” (City of Santa Cruz v.

Municipal Court, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 90.) Hull’s narrow definition of the term “determination” is neither ordinary nor usual. Hull further supports her argument that appellate review for challenges for cause and peremptory challenges must be different by relying on certain comments from the legislative history of the 1984 revisions to

part 1, title 2,

chapter 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See also Woodman, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at pp. 413-414.) These comments indicate that Senate Bill No. 1633, which “provide[s] a thorough revision of the law regarding disqualification of judges for cause,” would not amend

section 170.6. (See, e.g., Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1633 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) as amended March 29,1984, pp. 2-3.) We believe, as did the Court of Appeal in this case, that Hull interprets this comment too broadly. As the Guedalia court explained, a review of the context of the statements from the legislative history reveals that “the reference [to

section 170.6] simply stated the obvious: that the 1984 legislation did not intend to abrogate the substantive right to (or the trial court procedures for interposing) a peremptory challenge, but was instead directed toward substantive and trial court procedural reforms of ‘for cause’ challenges. [The] conclusion that appellate relief limitations [in

section 170.3(d)] are applicable to peremptory challenges does not contravene the legislative history, since application of appellate relief limitations leaves untouched the substantive and trial court procedural aspects of peremptory challenges.” (Guedalia, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1161, italics in original.) Finally, Hull maintains that if a peremptory challenge cannot be challenged on appeal, there will be no satisfactory method of appellate review. She argues that mandamus is not an effective remedy because “continuances are highly disfavored.” She also argues that

section 170.3(

d) will result in an increase of “posttrial mandamus.” However, the adequacy of the mandamus remedy is not an issue that is before us. The Legislature, through

section 170.3(d), has specifically determined that a writ of mandate shall be the exclusive means of challenging a denial of a motion to disqualify a judge. A party who is denied a peremptory challenge can file a petition for a writ of mandate and a request for a stay with the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal determines that the petition has merit, the court will likely grant a stay until the substantive issue is resolved. For this reason, a party who unsuccessfully makes a peremptory challenge is not exclusively subject to posttrial mandamus.

Indeed, the immediate pendency of the trial may be a strong factor the court will consider in favor of granting a stay. Conclusion Hull brought a peremptory challenge motion under

section 170.6 to disqualify her trial judge. The motion was denied as untimely. Hull proceeded to trial and did not challenge the denial by writ of mandate under

section 170.3(d). On appeal Hull attempted to challenge the denial of her motion. However,

section 170.3(

d) prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge motion. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. Lucas, C. J., Mosk, J., Arabian, J., Baxter, J., and George, J., concurred. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. The information also charged that at the time of the sale, Hull was released on her own recognizance pending trial on an earlier offense. (Pen.

Code, § 12022.1.) Furthermore, according to the information, Hull was ineligible for probation, and eligible for an enhanced sentence, in that she had been convicted of a prior violation of Health and Safety Code

section 11352. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11370, subd. (a), 11370.2.)

Section 170.6 states in part: “No judge, court commissioner, or referee of any superior, municipal or justice court of the State of California shall try any civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein which involves a contested issue of law or fact when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that the judge or court commissioner is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.” Although Woodman and Jenkins were decided on the same day and by the same division of the Court of Appeal, neither decision makes reference to the other.

The Guedalia decision was recently followed in People v. Broxson (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 977 [278 Cal.Rptr. 917], In Broxson the defendant filed a motion to peremptorily disqualify the sentencing judge under

section 170.6, and the trial court struck the motion as untimely. Rather than petitioning for a writ of mandate, the defendant claimed on appeal that the sentencing judge erroneously failed to disqualify himself. In following Guedalia, the Broxson court rejected Woodman's analysis and determined that Guedalia “has the better of the argument.” (People v. Broxson, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 979.)