In In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, a judge set bail for a criminal defendant awaiting trial. A different judge increased the bail amount solely because he believed the first judge's original bail determination was erroneous. The appellate court reversed, observing that in a criminal case, the court generally has the authority to correct its own prejudgment errors and there are few limits on a court's power to reconsider interim rulings. But different policy considerations apply when a different judge overturns an existing order because the power of one judge to vacate an order made by another judge is limited. "This principle is founded on the inherent difference between a judge and a court and is designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice. ' If the rule were otherwise, it would be only a matter of days until we would have a rule of man rather than a rule of law. To affirm the action taken in this case would lead directly to forum shopping, since if one judge should deny relief, defendants would try another and another judge until finally they found one who would grant what they were seeking. Such a procedure would instantly breed lack of confidence in the integrity of the courts.'" (Id. at p. 427.) For one judge to "nullify a duly made, erroneous ruling of another superior court judge places the second judge in the role of a one-judge appellate court." (Ibid.)