Judge Tilisha Martin

Judge Tilisha Martin serves on the San Diego Superior Court, having been appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in November 2015 — a Democratic-leaning appointment that places her among a cohort of judges generally associated with progressive judicial temperament, though appointment alone does not dictate ruling patterns. Her tenure now spans nearly a decade, giving her substantial experience across the court's docket. The notable cases identified in her public profile are concentrated in serious criminal matters, particularly juvenile and adult criminal proceedings involving violent offenses. Her involvement in a 2022 case concerning whether a San Diego teenager should be tried as an adult for a fatal drive-by shooting, and her connection to proceedings involving the Santana High School shooter's sentence recall petition, signals that she has been assigned to or has presided over high-profile, legally complex criminal cases that require careful balancing of statutory frameworks, public safety considerations, and evolving case law around juvenile justice and sentence recall under California Penal Code § 1172.1. These cases suggest she is comfortable managing cases with significant public scrutiny and media attention. Because no ruling analyses, attorney observations, or ingested content are available at this time, all characterizations of her judicial philosophy are necessarily inferred from her appointment background and the nature of the cases she has handled. Attorneys should treat this profile as a baseline requiring supplementation through direct courtroom observation and peer consultation before high-stakes appearances.

Given the absence of direct ruling data, attorneys appearing before Judge Martin should approach preparation conservatively and comprehensively. Her assignment to serious felony and juvenile transfer matters suggests she is well-versed in California criminal procedure, Welfare and Institutions Code provisions governing juvenile fitness hearings, and the evolving landscape of sentence recall jurisprudence. Attorneys in criminal matters should be prepared to argue statutory frameworks precisely and to address public safety factors explicitly, as these cases tend to require on-the-record findings. In juvenile transfer hearings specifically, the fitness criteria under Welfare and Institutions Code § 707 should be briefed thoroughly, with supporting case law and expert declarations where available. For sentence recall matters, familiarity with the post-AB 1540 framework and the court's discretionary authority is essential. Because Judge Martin was appointed under a Democratic administration and has handled cases involving juvenile defendants and sentence recall — areas where courts have shown increasing receptivity to rehabilitation-focused arguments — defense counsel may find value in presenting robust mitigation evidence and expert testimony on rehabilitation potential. Prosecutors should be prepared for rigorous questioning on the necessity of adult prosecution or continued incarceration. All counsel should arrive with organized, well-cited briefs and be prepared for a judge who has managed high-profile cases requiring careful legal reasoning under public scrutiny.

• critical

  Conduct Peer Consultation Before Any Appearance

  Because no ruling data exists in this profile, the single highest-priority preparation step is consulting with San Diego criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors who have appeared before Judge Martin recently. The San Diego County Bar Association and local criminal law sections are good starting points.

• critical

  Review Publicly Available Minute Orders and Transcripts

  Search the San Diego Superior Court's online case portal and any available transcript services for cases assigned to Judge Martin. Even procedural minute orders can reveal preferences around briefing schedules, evidentiary hearings, and oral argument style.

• critical

  Master Applicable Statutory Framework Thoroughly

  For criminal matters, ensure complete command of the relevant statutory framework — whether Welfare and Institutions Code § 707 for juvenile fitness, Penal Code § 1172.1 for sentence recall, or applicable Penal Code sections for adult felony proceedings. Her case history suggests she expects statutory precision.

• important

  Prepare Comprehensive Written Briefs

  Given the complexity of cases she has handled, submit thorough written briefs with clear legal citations rather than relying on oral argument alone. Judges managing high-profile cases often appreciate having a strong written record.

• important

  Secure Expert Witnesses for Evidentiary Hearings

  In juvenile transfer or sentence recall matters, expert testimony on psychological evaluation, rehabilitation potential, or public safety risk is often outcome-determinative. Identify and retain qualified experts early and ensure their reports are filed in compliance with local rules.

• Nice

  Review San Diego Superior Court Local Rules

  Familiarize yourself with San Diego Superior Court's local rules and any department-specific standing orders applicable to Judge Martin's courtroom. Compliance with local procedural requirements signals professionalism and avoids unnecessary friction.

• ›Arrive early and fully prepared — her management of high-profile cases suggests she values efficient, organized proceedings and may have limited patience for delays caused by unprepared counsel.
• ›Address the court formally and professionally at all times; given the serious nature of cases she has handled, a respectful and measured courtroom demeanor is expected.
• ›Cite statutory authority and case law precisely when making legal arguments — her docket history in complex criminal matters suggests she expects counsel to ground arguments in specific legal authority rather than general principles.
• ›Do not speak over opposing counsel or interrupt the court; high-profile case management typically requires a judge to maintain strict courtroom order.
• ›If you are uncertain about a procedural matter in her courtroom, contact the clerk's office in advance rather than raising the issue for the first time at hearing.