# Justice Tari L. Cody *legal · Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District retention · judge* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2024-01-17 to 2026-10-19. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 15 sources) Cody has sat on Division Six since 2023 and was confirmed as its Presiding Justice in 2026, after 22 years as a Ventura County trial judge, including as Supervising Juvenile Judge [Presiding Justice Tari L. Cody (court biography); Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission; Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission]. Court listings show 11 published opinions she authored from October 2024 to October 2026 and 4 separate opinions in 3 cases [Published opinions by Tari L. Cody, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. Her recent published work is mostly criminal: she upheld a reduced three-strikes sentence over the People's appeal (October 2026, her most recent) [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)], affirmed restitution for a rape victim and rejected a jury-trial claim under the 2026 Ellingburg decision [P. v. Singh (B348938, 2026-09-14; opinion by Tari L. Cody)], reversed a juvenile's adult-court transfer on the People's concession [In re J.C. (B345707)], and rejected Second Amendment challenges to state weapons laws [People v. Hardy (B343746)]. Her one published dissent would have reversed a trafficking conviction because the prosecutor called the Black defendant a "gorilla pimp" in violation of the Racial Justice Act [P. v. Wilson (B323666, 2025-06-09; concurring and dissenting opinion by Tari L. Cody)]. Her concurrences agree with colleagues' outcomes but dispute their reasoning [Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160, 2025-09-08; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody); P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody); Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160A, 2025-10-27; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody)]. Reform California urges a no vote without giving reasons; blogger Daniel Faigin, relying on AI-generated summaries, urges retention [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices]. ### Record highlights - Published opinions October 2024 to October 2026: 11 authored; 4 separate opinions in 3 cases (Pacho concurrence filed twice, original and on rehearing; Garcia concurrence; Wilson concurrence and dissent). Published opinions only. [Published opinions by Tari L. Cody, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - October 2026: affirmed a 27-year-8-month sentence after a second judge struck a prior strike, holding the People forfeited their objection; Justice Yegan dissented, warning of judge shopping. [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)] - September 2026: affirmed $20,000 restitution for a lost scholarship and held Ellingburg gives no California jury right on restitution; reversed a juvenile's adult-court transfer on the People's concession, over Yegan's dissent. [In re J.C. (B345707); P. v. Singh (B348938, 2026-09-14; opinion by Tari L. Cody)] - April 2026: rejected facial Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons, short-barreled shotguns, large-capacity magazines, and silencers. [People v. Hardy (B343746)] - October 2025: concurred in affirming a robbery conviction but would not have disapproved the division's Uriostegui jury-selection decision. [P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody)] - September and October 2025: concurred in reversing a ruling that cut a 99-year lease to 51 years, reasoning from the statute's text rather than the land's use or forfeiture. [Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160, 2025-09-08; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody); Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160A, 2025-10-27; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody)] - June 2025: dissented in part from affirming People v. Wilson; would have held the prosecutor's "gorilla pimp" argument violated the Racial Justice Act, accepted the People's concession of ineffective counsel, and reversed. [P. v. Wilson (B323666, 2025-06-09; concurring and dissenting opinion by Tari L. Cody)] ### Gaps - No reasoned criticism of her record; the only opposing source gives no reasons. - The supporting voter guide relies on AI-generated summaries rather than her opinions. - Unpublished opinions, the majority of appellate work, are not covered; her published civil majority opinions are listed but not collected. - No interview, questionnaire, or bar evaluation text beyond the reported rating. ### Arguments for / praise - Nothing disqualifying found; reports no discipline, an "exceptionally well qualified" rating, and long juvenile and family-law experience (drawn from AI-generated summaries). — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, per her court biography. — *California Courts of Appeal, Second District (court biography)* [Presiding Justice Tari L. Cody (court biography)] ### Arguments against / criticism - Recommends "do not retain," as for 30 of the 33 Second District justices it lists; no reasons given. — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Systematic sample by a fixed rule: from the court's published-opinion listings (Oct 2024 to Oct 2026), her separate opinions newest first (up to 3), then her most recent authored opinions, five texts in all, counted by case. Five cases, June 2025 to October 2026: separate opinions in People v. Wilson (S5, concurring and dissenting), Pacho v. Eureka Energy on rehearing (S3, concurring) and People v. Garcia (S4, concurring), each read from her own opinion only; and majority opinions as Presiding Justice in People v. Perkins (S1, over a dissent by Yegan, J.) and People v. Singh (S2). Four of five are criminal. The superseded original Pacho concurrence (Sept. 2025) no longer takes a slot. No unscripted speech. Text-first and close-reading. In Pacho she rests on the statute's words and its 1895 amendment to hold that Civil Code section 717 governs a lease's terms, not the land's use (S3). Strict on statutory findings but not on form: they "must exist" and cannot be imputed, yet plain English suffices (S4). Reads the Racial Justice Act by its text and the Legislature's stated findings, and would enforce it against a prosecutor's "gorilla pimp" argument even absent objection (S5). Leaves a statute's wisdom to the Legislature and public (S4). Applies procedural rules to both sides: holds the People to forfeiture (S1) and a defendant to his jury waiver (S2). Defers to trial-court discretion on sentencing and restitution (S1, S2). Reads new U.S. Supreme Court authority narrowly by comparing statutory features (S2). Follows the division's own precedent (Simmons, S5; Uriostegui, S4). Outcomes are mixed: she would have reversed a conviction (S5) and kept a reduced sentence against the People (S1), but ruled against defendants in S2 and S4. Five cases cannot establish a broader philosophy. Articulation: **strong**. Separate opinions state the disagreement in the first sentence, then build it from text and history (S3, S5). S5 walks the RJA's definition and both exceptions against the record, then the Strickland test, then the remedy, in labeled steps. Comparisons are concrete: Uriostegui set beside Garcia (S4), the federal MVRA and section 1202.4 compared feature by feature (S2). Majority opinions answer the dissent directly and briefly (S1). Prose is compact. Prepared written texts only. Consistency: **adequate**. Across five cases she applies the same textual method and enforces procedural rules regardless of which side benefits (S1, S2). Her readiness to follow the division's own precedent recurs: she defends Uriostegui against the majority (S4) and would follow Simmons where the majority distinguishes it (S5). On forfeiture she is not mechanical either way: she enforces it against the People (S1) but would reach an unobjected-to RJA violation through ineffective assistance (S5); the grounds differ (a conceded ineffectiveness claim versus a discretionary excuse), so this is not a change of position. The window is about 16 months. - Racial Justice Act: animal imagery in closing argument: Calling a Black defendant a "gorilla pimp" is racially discriminatory language under the RJA, outside its exceptions; failing to object was ineffective assistance and requires reversal. - "By gratuitously describing appellant as a “gorilla pimp” during closing argument, the prosecutor violated the RJA." [P. v. Wilson (B323666, 2025-06-09; concurring and dissenting opinion by Tari L. Cody)] (2025-06-09) - "One strains to produce an example of animal imagery more inflammatory than “gorilla pimp.”" [P. v. Wilson (B323666, 2025-06-09; concurring and dissenting opinion by Tari L. Cody)] (2025-06-09) - "I see no reason to depart from Simmons." [P. v. Wilson (B323666, 2025-06-09; concurring and dissenting opinion by Tari L. Cody)] (2025-06-09) - Long-term agricultural leases (Civil Code section 717): The statute targets restrictive lease terms, not a tenant's chosen use; an "any lawful purpose" lease is not barred. - "Section 717 governs the purpose of a lease—not how the leased property is used." [Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160A, 2025-10-27; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody)] (2025-10-27) - "Section 717 is not a tool for property owners with lessor’s remorse to wrest “any-purpose” leaseholds from long-term tenants who use the land for agricultural activities." [Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160A, 2025-10-27; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody)] (2025-10-27) - Peremptory challenges (Code Civ. Proc. section 231.7): Findings that rebut a presumption of invalidity must actually be made, though no set wording is needed; Uriostegui should not be disapproved. - "Those findings need not take a particular form. But they must exist, and appellate courts cannot impute them." [P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody)] (2025-10-06) - Forfeiture by the prosecution: The People forfeit an objection they could have raised below; silence should not let a party win either way. - "By contrast, allowing a party to reap the benefit of silence on these facts would confound both the due administration of justice and the public interest." [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)] (2026-10-19) - Jury right on victim restitution after Ellingburg: California restitution is compensatory with no statutory maximum, so Ellingburg creates no jury right. - "Ellingburg does not create a right to trial by jury on the issue of restitution in California." [P. v. Singh (B348938, 2026-09-14; opinion by Tari L. Cody)] (2026-09-14) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work, and majority opinions are panel products. Four of five cases are criminal; no civil or family majority opinion made the sample. Perkins (S1) also contains Yegan, J.'s dissent, which is not her words. The separate-opinion texts exclude the majority opinions they respond to, so the majorities' reasoning is known here only as she characterizes it. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-20** — People v. Perkins filed (most recent authored opinion listed) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-19** — Published: P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-10-19** — Opinion filed affirming, with dissent (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-09-14** — Published: P. v. Singh (B348938, 2026-09-14; opinion by Tari L. Cody) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-09-14** — Opinion filed affirming restitution (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-09-02** — Published: In re J.C. (B345707) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-09-02** — Opinion filed in In re J.C. (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-08-10** — Published: Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission (Metropolitan News-Enterprise) - **2026-08-07** — Commission approved Cody's elevation (the Friday before publication) (Metropolitan News-Enterprise) - **2026-08-07** — Commission approved Cody's elevation (the Friday before Aug. 10, 2026) (California Courts Newsroom) - **2026-08** — Confirmed as Presiding Justice of Division Six (per the guide) (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-04-22** — Published: People v. Hardy (B343746) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-04-22** — Published opinion filed in People v. Hardy (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026** — Confirmed as Presiding Justice, Division Six (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **2025-10-27** — Published: Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160A, 2025-10-27; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-10-27** — Opinion on rehearing filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-10-06** — Published: P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-10-06** — Opinion filed affirming, with two concurrences (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-09-08** — Published: Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160, 2025-09-08; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-09-08** — Original opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-06-09** — Concurring and dissenting opinion in People v. Wilson (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-06-09** — Published: P. v. Wilson (B323666, 2025-06-09; concurring and dissenting opinion by Tari L. Cody) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-06-09** — Opinion filed; Cody concurs in part and dissents on the Racial Justice Act issue (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-04** — Second judge granted the renewed motion at sentencing (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-03-25** — Juvenile court granted transfer to criminal court (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2025-01** — First judge denied the Romero motion (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2024-01-17** — Published: Olson v. Saville (B324465) (Justia (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six)) - **2023** — Confirmed as Associate Justice, Second District, Division Six (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) ## Sources ### P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2026-10-19 · stance: not_applicable - Cody's majority opinion affirms a sentence of 27 years and eight months after a second judge granted a Romero motion to strike one prior strike that a first judge had denied. The People forfeited their objection to the second judge hearing the motion by not raising it below, and the strike dismissal was within the court's discretion. Justice Yegan dissented, warning the ruling invites judge shopping. - Declines to excuse the People's forfeiture because a timely objection could have let the court or defendant adjust; silence would let the People win either way. - Says the ruling leaves the rules on judicial reconsideration (People v. Sons) undisturbed. - Upholds the strike dismissal: an old, nonviolent burglary at age 19, a first violent felony, and a thorough explanation by the trial court; distinguishes People v. Vasquez. - Yegan dissent: one superior court judge should not overrule another; would send the matter back to the first judge. ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - Blogger Daniel Faigin's ballot analysis recommends retaining Cody, finding nothing disqualifying. His discussion is drawn explicitly from 'Google AI' output. - Conclusion: Retain (Yes): 'None of this is a reason for disqualification.' - Reports, from Google AI, no ethical scandals or discipline, an 'exceptionally well qualified' JNE rating, and her August 2026 confirmation as the first woman to preside over Division Six. - Notes her long juvenile and family-law background on the Ventura bench. ### P. v. Singh (B348938, 2026-09-14; opinion by Tari L. Cody) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2026-09-14 · stance: not_applicable - Cody's unanimous opinion affirms a $20,000 restitution order for a rape victim's lost university scholarship. It holds the U.S. Supreme Court's 2026 Ellingburg decision, which treated federal MVRA restitution as punishment, does not give California defendants a jury right on restitution, because California restitution is compensatory and has no statutory maximum; in any event the defendant waived a jury. - Compares California's section 1202.4 with the federal MVRA feature by feature and finds no punitive intent. - Reaches the merits despite forfeiture because Ellingburg postdated the hearing. - Treats the lost scholarship like lost future wages; declines to offset the $6,000 first-year award. - Upholds a stipulated stay of interest accrual, rejecting the People's unauthorized-sentence argument. ### In re J.C. (B345707) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six · court opinion · published 2026-09-02 · stance: not_applicable - Cody wrote a short published majority opinion reversing the adult-court transfer of J.C., who was 15 at the time of two 2009 gang murders and 19 when indicted. Applying Welf. & Inst. Code § 707(a)(2) as amended by SB 1391, the court accepted the People's concession that he was apprehended within juvenile jurisdiction and could not be transferred. - Holding: SB 1391 bars transfer of 14- and 15-year-old offenders unless they were apprehended after juvenile jurisdiction ended; J.C. was not. - The opinion traces the case through Proposition 57, SB 1391, and AB 2361 and relies on O.G. v. Superior Court (2021), which upheld the statute. - It does not reach J.C.'s alternative argument, given the concession. - Yegan dissented, saying release of a 31-year-old who admitted two murders 'potentially puts the community at risk and is unacceptable.' ### Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission - Metropolitan News-Enterprise · news · published 2026-08-10 · stance: neutral - MetNews reports that the commission approved Cody's elevation to presiding justice of Division Six, which hears appeals from Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. - She has sat on Division Six since 2023. - Commission: Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Administrative Presiding Justice Elwood Lui. ### Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2026-08-10 · stance: neutral - A judicial-branch news item reports the commission's approval of Cody's elevation from associate justice to presiding justice of the Second District. - Approved by the Commission on Judicial Appointments (called 'Commission on Judicial Nominations' in the item). - Reference: MetNews article ### People v. Hardy (B343746) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six · court opinion · published 2026-04-22 · stance: not_applicable - Writing for Division Six, Cody rejected facial Second Amendment challenges to California's bans on assault weapons, short-barreled shotguns, large-capacity magazines, and silencers, and to its dealer-transfer requirement, affirming Dylan Hardy's convictions. - Assault weapons and short-barreled shotguns: not protected 'arms' under Heller's common-use test, relying on Miller, Heller's M-16 dictum, and prior California cases. - Large-capacity magazines and silencers: accessories, not 'arms', following the Ninth Circuit's Duncan v. Bonta (2025). - Dealer-transfer rule (§ 27545): fees under $50 and travel are not a 'meaningful constraint' under the ancillary-rights doctrine. - Refused to consider survey and statistical data outside the trial record, and treated a one-paragraph preemption argument as forfeited. ### Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160A, 2025-10-27; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2025-10-27 · stance: not_applicable - On rehearing, the majority (Yegan, J., with Gilbert, P.J.) again reverses the ruling that limited the Wild Cherry Canyon lease to 51 years, now framing the case through anti-forfeiture rules. Cody again concurs only in the result, adding that she "would reverse without reaching the issue of forfeiture": section 717 governs a lease's terms, and this "any lawful purpose" lease creates no agricultural perpetuity. - Majority adds that the parties understood the land would be grazed for fire prevention, and that respondent "has missed the forest." - Cody's revised concurrence states plainly: "Section 717 governs the purpose of a lease—not how the leased property is used." - She notes respondents did not dispute that the lease allows nonagricultural use. ### P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2025-10-06 · stance: not_applicable - Gilbert's majority affirms a 118-years-to-life robbery conviction, holding a prosecutor's peremptory strike of a timid, inexperienced juror complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 and disapproving the division's own 2024 Uriostegui decision. Cody concurs that the strike was valid but writes that Uriostegui is distinguishable and should not be disapproved: there, presumptively invalid reasons were never rebutted, while here the court confirmed the demeanor in plain English. Yegan separately concurs that the statute's automatic-prejudice rule is unconstitutional. - Cody: section 231.7 findings "need not take a particular form" but "must exist, and appellate courts cannot impute them." - Cody: the court is "not tasked with adjudicating" the statute's efficacy. - Majority notes the Attorney General conceded error and calls the concession too easy; the San Luis Obispo District Attorney filed as amicus. ### Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co. (B332160, 2025-09-08; concurring opinion by Tari L. Cody) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2025-09-08 · stance: not_applicable - The majority (Yegan, J., with Gilbert, P.J.) reverses a ruling that voided a 99-year lease of 2,400 acres at Wild Cherry Canyon after 51 years under Civil Code section 717, holding that grazing about 111 cattle for fire prevention did not make it an agricultural lease and the ruling worked a $39 million forfeiture. Cody concurs in the result but rejects the use-based reasoning: section 717 targets the lease's terms, and an "any lawful purpose" lease cannot be agricultural regardless of how the land is used. - Cody traces the 1895 amendment from "agricultural land" to "land for agricultural purposes" to argue the statute looks to the lease's purpose, not the land's use. - She faults the trial court for using extrinsic evidence to read the lease's express terms. - She warns the majority's approach could let lessors revisit the lease as grazing grows (200 head in 2045, 300 in 2075). ### P. v. Wilson (B323666, 2025-06-09; concurring and dissenting opinion by Tari L. Cody) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2025-06-09 · stance: not_applicable - Published criminal appeal affirming Gregory Wilson's human-trafficking and kidnapping convictions (opinion by Yegan, J., joined by Gilbert, P. J.). Cody concurred in part and dissented: she would hold that the prosecutor's repeated description of the Black defendant as a "gorilla pimp" in closing argument violated the Racial Justice Act, accept the People's concession that counsel was ineffective for not objecting, and reverse. - Majority: by not objecting, Wilson forfeited the RJA claim; counsel was not ineffective as a matter of law on this record, and the claim belongs in habeas corpus. - Majority: "gorilla pimp" is a sex-trade term of art for a pimp who uses force; the prosecutor never compared Wilson to an actual gorilla. - Cody: the term is animal imagery that appeals to racial bias, fits neither RJA exception (relating another's words, neutral physical description), and was used three times to persuade the jury. - Cody: no reasonable tactic justified the failure to object; she would follow the division's own People v. Simmons (2023) and reverse without harmless-error analysis. - Cody joins the rest of the majority opinion (sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, section 654). ### Olson v. Saville (B324465) - Justia (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) · court opinion · published 2024-01-17 · stance: not_applicable - ### Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County - Reform California · voter guide · published undated · stance: oppose - Reform California's Los Angeles County voter guide recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Cody, as it does for 30 of the 33 Second District justices it lists. No reasons are given. - Cody: DO NOT RETAIN. - Only Victoria Chavez, Frances Rothschild, and Kenneth Yegan get RETAIN in the Second District. - Also recommends DO NOT RETAIN for both Supreme Court justices. ### Official Voter Information Guide: Second District Court of Appeal justices - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's official guide lists Tari L. Cody, Presiding Justice, Division Six, among the Second District justices on the Nov. 3, 2026 retention ballot. It gives names and divisions only. - Cody is listed as Presiding Justice of Division Six, with Associate Justice Kenneth R. Yegan. - No qualifications, ratings, or arguments appear on this page. - Reference: Court biography of Tari L. Cody ### New presiding justice Cody brings close reading, collegiality to Division 6 - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Presiding Justice Tari L. Cody (court biography) - California Courts of Appeal, Second District · other · published undated · stance: neutral - The court's biography says Cody was confirmed to Division Six as an associate justice in 2023 and as Presiding Justice in 2026, after 22 years on the Ventura County Superior Court and a career in private civil practice. - Appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom; rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission. - Trial judge for 22 years (appointed by Gov. Gray Davis) across family, civil, criminal, probate, and juvenile matters; served as Supervising Juvenile Judge. - Co-chairs the Judicial Council's Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee. - Before the bench, a partner at Oxnard and Westlake Village law firms. ### Published opinions by Tari L. Cody, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The court's published-opinion listings for October 2024 to October 2026 show 11 opinions Cody authored and 4 separate opinions: three concurrences (People v. Garcia and both versions of Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co., the original and the opinion on rehearing) and one concurring and dissenting opinion (People v. Wilson). By case name, the authored opinions include five criminal appeals, one juvenile case, and five civil cases, including suits involving a county agency, an insurer, and a country club. - Authored: 11; separate: 4 (3 concurrences, 1 concurring and dissenting), with Pacho counted twice. - Most recent authored: People v. Perkins (2026-10-20); earliest: C.C. v. L.B. (2024-11-26). - Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and do not appear. ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.