20
In Powers, the Supreme court considered whether
Government Code section 6259, subdivision (c), violated the
California Constitution’s clause granting courts of appeal
appellate jurisdiction (except following a judgment of death) by
limiting appellate review of a superior court’s decision under the
Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) to the filing of a
petition for an extraordinary writ. (Powers, supra, 10 Cal.4th at
pp. 89-90.) In concluding section 6259, subdivision (c), provided
effective relief and thus passed constitutional muster, the court
explained, “[W]hen writ review is the exclusive means of
appellate review of a final order or judgment, an appellate court
may not deny an apparently meritorious writ petition, timely
presented in a formally and procedurally sufficient manner,
merely because, for example, the petition presents no important
issue of law or because the court considers the case less worthy of
its attention than other matters.” (Powers, at p. 114; see Leone v.
Medical Bd. of Cal. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 663-664, 669 [provision
limiting review of physician discipline matters to filing of writ
petition does not violate appellate jurisdiction clause of California
Constitution because there was no basis to infer from frequency
of summary denials of writ petitions “that extraordinary writ
review is not a sufficient or effective appellate remedy in
physician discipline proceedings”].)
Because a tenant in default cannot challenge the adequacy
of the three-day notice by appealing the possession-only
judgment, the only remedy available to the tenant is to file a
petition for a writ of mandate. Thus, upon the filing of an
adequately pleaded petition for writ of mandate in the appellate
division challenging a possession-only judgment, the appellate
division must reach the merits of the petition, and if the petition