is no presumption or general rule that for every duty imposed upon the court or the Government and its prosecutors there must exist some corollary punitive sanction for departures or omissions, even if negligent.”) (quoting United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711, 717, 110 S.Ct. 2072, 2077, 109 L.Ed.2d 720 (1990)). In addition, procedural defects in a judge’s qualifications do not affect the fairness of the proceedings. See Bowen, 283 Cal.Rptr. at 39 (stating that the issue of whether the judge met county residency requirement was “wholly removed from the question of [the defendant’s] guilt or innocence or the fairness of the trial.”). Furthermore, the de facto judge doctrine pro- tects third parties and the public in their dealings with the judicia P.2d 801, 805, 808 (1954) (<HOLDING>). Here, Judge Schulz was appointed as a judge
holding that where a judge pro tempore is in actual possession of the office and discharging its duties he or she acts under color of title and is a judge de facto recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that party who had sought disqualification of the judge who heard his cause only from the assignment judge and not the judge himself could not appropriately raise recusal issue on appeal holding that the appointment of a pro tempore judge vests in him or her the powers of a judge of the   court during the period specified in the assignment holding that the improper appointment of a judge to a case deprived the court of jurisdiction to rule on any motions pending before that judge the orders entered by that judge were entered without jurisdiction of the court and were thus void