lot of judges talk about judicial restraint and respecting precedent. Joanne Parrilli actually walks the walk. Parrilli is one of those judges who genuinely goes where the law takes her, even if it's somewhere she doesn't personally like. She may criticize the law, or suggest that the Legislature or the California Supreme Court reexamine it, but she won't ignore it.
Maybe that's why in her 31/2 years on the court, Parrilli has yet to see a single ruling depublished or reversed by the Supreme Court.
A great example is People v. Woods, 61 Cal.App.4th 246, in which Parrilli reluctantly affirmed a trial judge's finding that police had used a pretext to conduct a warrantless search. If the California Supreme Court precedent the defense had relied on was no longer viable, Parrilli wrote, it was up to that court to say so. "We do not believe it is our office to do so on their behalf," she wrote.
Parrilli also disappointed the powerful California Judicial Council by ruling in Trans-Action Commercial Investors v. Firmaterr, 60 Cal.App.4th 352, that a rule of court giving judges broad sanctioning powers was inconsistent with statute. Despite the Judicial Council's urging, the Supreme Court declined to second-guess Parrilli's decision.
Parrilli has been very active in judicial administration, serving as a member of the Judicial Council, the executive committee of the California Judges Association, and as a special master for the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Parrilli's Division Three is the second slowest panel on the First District for processing appeals. The median time from briefing to decision in civil appeals was 202 days, criminal 142.
