In re Raymond H.
Filed 3/2/06 In re Raymond H. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re RAYMOND H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RONNIE H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F048646
(Super. Ct. No. 82486-1)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and Howard K. Watkins, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Ronnie H. appeals from an order denying his Marsden[1] motion. We find no error and affirm the order.
DISCUSSION
Ronnie is Raymond's presumed father. The juvenile court has had jurisdiction over Raymond since 1999, and Raymond has been placed with the same foster family for over three years. Ronnie no longer visits Raymond, his latest excuse being that he has previously had bad experiences with social services.
Ronnie's last appeal, our nonpublished opinion No. F047401, filed November 2, 2005, occurred after a January 18, 2005, placement review hearing. A permanent plan already had been adopted for Raymond, and the January 18 hearing was a review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3.[2] The only issue raised was whether Ronnie's appointed counsel, Charles Barrett, had a conflict of interest requiring his disqualification from the case. Barrett was employed by Barker & Associates Downtown. This is one of the independent offices set up by John A. Barker & Associates (Barker) to provide conflict free-counsel in various cases where individuals are entitled to appointed counsel, and the public defender's office declares a conflict. Ronnie argued that because Raymond's mother was represented by Patricia Pinto of the Fresno Dependency Office, another independent Barker office, that there was necessarily a conflict because the same law firm (Barker) represented both the mother and the father in a dependency case.
In our nonpublished opinion No. F047401, we held the record did not establish a violation of Rule 3-310(C)(1), (2) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct or controlling case law, the juvenile court did not have a duty to investigate the alleged conflict because there were no facts to indicate a conflict, real or potential, and, even if the juvenile court should have investigated the matter, there was no possible prejudice to Ronnie. Ronnie's petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied on January 18, 2006 (S139342).
Ronnie has filed three notices of appeal since the January 18, 2005, hearing and two notices of intent to file a writ. On our own motion, we have deemed the various documents as an appeal from the orders entered after the hearings on August 2, 23, 30, and 31, 2005. We also have concluded there was no basis for any writ.
A section 366.3 review hearing was scheduled for August 2, 2005. At the hearing, Patricia Pinto filed a notice of conflict and was relieved as counsel for mother. Neither the clerk's transcript nor the reporter's transcript indicates the basis for the conflict. The hearing thereafter was continued to August 23 at Ronnie's request.
The August 23 hearing again was continued to August 30, again at Ronnie's request. The August 30 hearing was continued to August 31, this time at the request of counsel for mother, who could not be present. Neither Ronnie nor his counsel objected to the continuance.
At the August 31 hearing, Ronnie expressed a desire to file a challenge to the Honorable Jane A. Cardoza pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Ronnie's counsel informed the juvenile court that he had advised Ronnie there were no grounds for such a challenge and counsel refused to file one. Ronnie, nonetheless, argued there were grounds, which appear to be that Judge Cardoza recently had found mother was in violation of her probation and returned her to jail or prison. Judge Cardoza denied the motion.
When the topic returned to the section 366.3 review, Ronnie again expressed his view that the entire proceeding was void because his constitutional rights were violated for reasons already litigated ad nauseam in this court. The juvenile court set the matter for a contested section 366.3 review hearing to permit the matter to be fully litigated.
Ronnie next expressed his displeasure with Barrett. The juvenile court conducted a Marsden hearing. Ronnie stated his displeasure with Barrett apparently arose from Barrett's refusal to follow his (Ronnie's) orders. Ronnie wanted Barrett to file a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 motion, which Barrett refused to do as he (Barrett) deemed the motion frivolous. Ronnie also expressed displeasure because Barrett informed him there was no recourse for the Ronnie's numerous complaints about the prior proceedings. The juvenile court found no basis for relieving counsel and denied Ronnie's motion.
Ronnie asserts the juvenile court erred in not relieving Barrett as counsel because he had a conflict. He incorporates the arguments made in case No. F047401, as well as the record from that case. The only new information added is a reference to Pinto's declaration that she had a conflict and requested to be relieved as mother's counsel in this matter.
Our nonpublished opinion in case No. F047401, which is now final, adequately addressed Ronnie's arguments. We find no significance to the assertion that because Pinto asserted she had a conflict, Barrett also must have had a conflict. We do not know the grounds on which Pinto asserted the conflict. It may very well be completely unrelated to anything that occurred in this case. Moreover, any conflict that arose as a result of Pinto's employment by Barker has now resolved. So if a potential conflict existed, it has now been resolved. We again emphasize, there is no evidence that Pinto and Barrett ever had a conflict because of their employment, but point out that any perceived conflict arising out of their employment no longer exists.
DISPOSITION
All orders from which Ronnie appeals are affirmed.
Publication courtesy of Vista Overtime Lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And Vista Lawyers Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Cornell, J.
[1] People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
[2] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
