In what circumstances will a defendant be denied a new trial under section 1538.5(p) of the Criminal Code?

section 1538.5(p). (Cf. People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 757, fn. 5, 150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220 (Arbuckle ) [explaining that a defendant's reasonable expectation of having his sentence imposed, pursuant to bargain and guilty plea, by the

[1 Cal.5th 843]

judge who took his plea and ordered sentence reports should not be thwarted for mere administrative convenience].)

This is not to say that reviewing courts are now free to second-guess judgment calls that are better left to the trial courts. Trial courts have considerable discretion to administer their logistical affairs, and rightly so: lodged in trial courts is likely the contextual knowledge and motivation to deploy judicial resources effectively, and to learn over time. But to adequately protect a defendant's statutory right under section 1538.5(p), we hold that a trial court must take reasonable steps in good faith to ensure that the same judge who granted the previous suppression motion is assigned to hear the relitigated motion. Only if the trial court has done so may it make a finding of unavailability. And the trial court must make such a finding on the record, so appellate review proves meaningful. (See People v. Lewis (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 10631064, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775 ; cf. Still v. Pearson (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 315, 318, 215 P.2d 87 [when a judge other than the one who presided at the trial proceeds to hear the motion for a new trial, it is the best practice, in the interests of certainty and convenience, to cause a record to be made reciting the fact of the inability or absence of the judge who presided at the trial].) Such a finding, unsupported by record evidence demonstrating the reasonable measures a trial court has taken to honor a defendant's section 1538.5(p) right, is an abuse of discretion.