In re E.L.
Filed 3/6/06 In re E.L. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re E.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H028596 (San Benito County Super. Ct. No. JD0500001) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.L., Defendant and Appellant. |
The minor, E.L., appeals following a contested jurisdictional hearing in which she was adjudged a ward of the court. The minor claims the juvenile court judge was biased against her; there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim suffered great bodily injury; and that she was erroneously sentenced to multiple punishment for the same act.
Statement of the Facts and Case
The present case stems from a tumultuous dating relationship between Malinda G., the minor's mother, and Dinorah Roiz, the victim. The two had been in a relationship for eight years, and at the time of the incident were no longer together. Although they were no longer seeing each other, Roiz continued to seek out Malinda G., and Malinda G. had a restraining order against her.
On December 2, 2004, Roiz and two of her friends drove to an apartment complex in Watsonville. As Roiz was getting out of the car, Malinda and her two daughters, Monique and the minor drove up in a grey van. Malinda walked over to Roiz, started arguing with her and attempted to prevent Roiz from getting out of the car.
Monique told the minor to get a screwdriver from the van. The minor walked to the van and picked up a screwdriver. As Roiz continued to argue with Malinda, the minor walked up and stabbed Roiz in the head with the screwdriver. Malinda tried to stop the minor, but she stabbed Roiz a second time in the neck, just above the collarbone. Monique then grabbed the minor and restrained her and the two went back to the van.
Following the incident, Roiz was bleeding from both wounds. Her friends called 911 and an ambulance arrived and took Roiz to Watsonville Community Hospital, where she was flown by helicopter to Stanford Medical Center. Roiz was at Stanford for four to five hours, and received two stitches to her head wound. The puncture wound to her neck was not sutured, but was allowed to remain open for healing. Roiz was prescribed Vicodin for pain, and was still experiencing headaches at the time of the jurisdictional hearing.
An amended petition under Welfare Institutions Code section 602 was filed in December 2004, alleging that the minor committed assault with a deadly weapon and with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), with additional allegations of personal infliction of great bodily injury and personal use of a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.7, subd. (a)(1), 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true. The minor was adjudged a ward of the court and committed to juvenile hall for 120 days, with the provision that she would be eligible for electronic monitoring in 60 days. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
The minor asserts the following three claims on appeal: (1) the juvenile court judge was biased against her; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim suffered great bodily injury; and (3) she was erroneously sentenced to multiple punishments for the same act.[1]
Judicial Bias
The minor asserts she was denied her due process right to a fair trial because the judge was biased against her. The primary basis of the minor's claim of bias is her assertion that the judge had ex parte communications with the prosecutor regarding rap sheets of witnesses for the trial. However, while the minor does present evidence that the judge admitted to such ex parte communications with the prosecutor on some cases, she does not present any evidence that the judge had ex parte communications with the prosecutor on this case.
In this case, the defense attorney and the judge discussed the issue of ex parte communications relating to witnesses for trial. Their discussion was as follows: â€
