Filed 12/29/17 P. v. Schmidt CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LONNIE GLENN SCHMIDT,

Defendant and Appellant.
H044222
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1348325)
Defendant Lonnie Glenn Schmidt pleaded no contest to five counts of recording a false instrument (Pen. Code, § 115) and one count of using personal identifying information without authorization (§ 530.5). Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436 (Wende) on behalf of defendant. The brief states the case and the facts, but raises no issues. Defendant has submitted written argument on his own behalf. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm.



I. Procedural Background
On January 18, 2013, defendant Lonnie Glenn Schmidt was charged in a criminal complaint that he committed the following offenses in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
Count 1: On or about January 4, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Substitution of Trustee #20564216,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 2: On or about January 4, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Reconveyance #20564217,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 3: On or about January 4, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Notice of Rescission #20564218,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 4: On or about January 21, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Mortgage #20583811,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 5: On or about January 4, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Notice of Rescission #20563850,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 6: On or about January 4, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Substitution of Trustee #20563848,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 7: On or about January 21, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Mortgage #20583810,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 8: On or about February 3, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Notice of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed #20600265,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 9: On or about June 10, 2010, he committed the crime of using personal identifying information without authorization, in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (a), a felony, in that he did willfully obtain personal identifying information, the name of U.S. Bank, N.A., and used the information for an unlawful purpose, including to obtain, and attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, real property, and medical information, in the name of U.S. Bank, N.A., without his or her consent.
Count 10: On or about June 10, 2010, he committed the crime of forgery of an instrument other than a check, money order, etc., in violation of section 470, subdivision (d), a felony, in that he did with intent to defraud, falsely make, alter, forge, and counterfeit, a grant deed, and utter, publish, pass, attempt to pass and offer to pass, as true and genuine, a grant deed, knowing it to be false, altered, forged, and counterfeited.
Count 11: On or about June 10, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Grant Deed #20737907,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 12: On or about January 21, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Substitution of Trustee #20583805,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 13: On or about January 21, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Notice of Rescission #20583806,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 14: On or about January 21, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Reconveyance #20583807,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 15: On or about January 21, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Mortgage #20583808,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 16: On or about June 18, 2010, he committed the crime of using personal identifying information without authorization, in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (a), a felony, in that he did willfully obtain personal identifying information, the name of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and used the information for an unlawful purpose, including to obtain, and attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, real property, and medical information, in the name of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., without his or her consent.
Count 17: On or about June 18, 2010, he committed the crime of forgery of an instrument other than a check, money order, etc., in violation of section 470, subdivision (d), a felony, in that he did with intent to defraud, falsely make, alter, forge, and counterfeit, a grant deed, and utter, publish, pass, attempt to pass and offer to pass, as true and genuine, a grant deed, knowing it to be false, altered, forged, and counterfeited.
Count 18: On or about June 21, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Grant Deed #20747484,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 19: On or about June 25, 2010, he committed the crime of making an untrue and misleading statement concerning the sale of a residence in foreclosure, in violation of Civil Code sections 1695.6, subdivision (b) and 1695.8, a felony, in that he did, as an equity purchaser, make and untrue and misleading statement to Jeff and Sally Veliquette concerning the sale of a residence in foreclosure.
Count 20: On or about September 13, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Substitution of Trustee #20866097,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 21: On or about September 13, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Reconveyance #20866098,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 22: On or about October 14, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Notice of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed #20913176,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 23: On or about March 21, 2011, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Mortgage #21117434,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 24: On or about April 16, 2010, he committed the crime of making an untrue and misleading statement concerning the sale of a residence in foreclosure, in violation of Civil Code sections 1695.6, subdivision (b) and 1695.8, a felony, in that he did, as an equity purchaser, make and untrue and misleading statement to Debby Kline concerning the sale of a residence in foreclosure.
Count 25: On or about November 8, 2010, he committed the crime of recording a false instrument, in violation of section 115, a felony, in that he did knowingly procure and offer a false and forged instrument, “Mortgage #20952018,” to be filed, registered, and recorded in a public office within the State of California, which instrument if genuine, might be filed, registered, and recorded under the laws of the State of California and the United States.
Count 26: On or about November 8, 2010, he committed the crime of grand theft of personal property of a value over $950, in violation of sections 484 and 487, subdivision (a), in that he did unlawfully take personal property, $6,000, of a value exceeding $950, the property of Debby Kline.
Count 27: On or about November 8, 2010, he committed the crime of unlawful collection of a fee by a foreclosure consultant, in violation of Civil Code sections 2945.4, subdivision (a) and 2945.7, a felony, in that he did, as a foreclosure consultant, unlawfully claim, demand, charge, collect, and receive compensation from Debby Kline prior to fully performing each and every service they contracted to perform and represented that they would perform.
On October 9, 2013, the public defender made a special appearance, defendant was present for the first time on the Santa Clara County charges, out of custody, and arraignment was waived. The case was continued for defendant to hire counsel.
On October 31, 2013, defendant appeared without counsel and entered a 60-day time waiver. The case was continued until December 12, 2013.
On December 12, 2013, defendant appeared with counsel and was arrested on an arrest warrant from Sacramento County. He was remanded on this case and bail was set at $200,000.
On January 2, 2014, defense counsel explained that the parties had stipulated to a reduction of bail and agreed to a continuance to February 18, 2014, to enter a plea. Bail was reduced to $150,000 and defendant remained in custody on the Sacramento County warrant.
On February 18, 2014, defendant failed to appear to enter a plea in this case. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest.
Defendant remained in custody throughout the proceedings in Sacramento County until June 14, 2016.
On June 15, 2016, defendant appeared in court, in custody, with the public defender making a special appearance.
On June 20, 2016, defendant filed a petition to proceed in propria persona. He told the trial court that he had recently represented himself during his five-month trial in Sacramento County. The trial court found that defendant had made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and granted the petition.
On July 5, 2016, defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint on the following grounds: (1) perjury by state officers; (2) arrest warrant issued absent evidence of probable cause; (3) denial of speedy trial; (4) the complaint fails to state a public offense: (A) the statute of limitations bars prosecution; and (B) the facts stated in the complaint do not constitute a public offense. The prosecutor filed opposition to the demurrer.
On July 25, 2016, the trial court found that issues 1, 2, and 3 were not appropriate for demurrer and did not rule on these issues. The trial court overruled the demurrer as to issues 4A and 4B.
On August 30, 2016, defendant indicated that he had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Defendant refused to enter a plea and waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The trial court went off the record to allow defendant to look at the relevant form. The trial court later asked the prosecutor to present the plea agreement. The prosecutor noted that defendant faced a maximum sentence of 20 years and four months consecutive to his sentence in Sacramento County. The prosecutor stated that if defendant pleaded guilty or no contest to six felonies, his sentence would be five years and four months concurrent to the Sacramento County case. Defendant would also receive credit for time served and thus would have already completed his sentence. The parties agreed to continue the case to allow defendant the opportunity to consider the prosecutor’s offer. The trial court further stated that it would keep defendant’s waiver of preliminary hearing in the file but not enter it or his plea, so that defendant could decide what he wanted to do at his next court appearance.
On September 2, 2016, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent defendant.
On September 15, 2016, the trial court summarized the terms of the plea agreement. Defendant would plead no contest to counts 1, 5, 9, 12, 20, and 25 for a total sentence of five years and four months. The trial court advised defendant of his rights to a preliminary hearing, to a jury trial, to cross-examine witnesses, to testify, to call witnesses, to present a defense, to use the court’s subpoena power, and to remain silent. Defendant stated that he understood his rights and waived them. He also signed and dated an advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form. Defendant stated that he understood the immigration consequences of his pleas. Both the prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for the pleas. Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1, 5, 9, 12, 20, and 25.
On September 28, 2016, the sentencing hearing was held. The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to prison for five years and four months. The sentence was concurrent to the term he was serving in Sacramento County case No. 13F07578. He was awarded total presentence credits of 2,044 days. The sentence was deemed satisfied. Defendant was advised that he would serve a three-year period of parole supervision. The trial court entered a general order of restitution and imposed a restitution fine of $200, a court security fee of $180, and a criminal conviction assessment of $180. An additional restitution fine of $200 was also imposed and suspended. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts.
On November 16, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was granted.


II. Factual Background
Between January 4, 2010 and March 21, 2010, defendant ran a foreclosure rescue scam. He filed false documents that purported to wipe out existing deeds of trust on homes and to cancel the foreclosure process. However, the effect of these false documents was to cloud title on each property. Defendant pleaded no contest to six counts relating to five separate properties. The false documents included three substitutions of trustee (counts 1, 12, and 20), a notice of rescission (count 5), a grant deed (count 9), and a mortgage (count 25). The documents were false because defendant was not authorized to execute any of them. In connection with count 9, he used the name of a bank without authorization.

III. Discussion
A. Adequacy of Complaint
Defendant contends that he was “arrested, held for trial, and convicted pursuant to a complaint which failed to establish probable cause in violation of his rights to due process of law.” (Capitalization omitted.)
Defendant argues that there were no sworn documents alleging probable cause for his arrest. He claims that there was no declaration in support of probable cause “attached” to the complaint and thus he concludes that the complaint was insufficient to arrest and prosecute him. The trial court informed defendant that the declaration in support of probable cause was in the court’s file. The trial court also explained to defendant that the court file was organized in two halves: the complaint was on one side and the declaration was on the other side. Defendant continues to claim that there is no declaration in support of probable cause attached to the complaint.
Defendant argues that the complaint did not provide sufficient notice of the charges against him and failed to state facts constituting a public offense. He thus argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
Section 952 provides in relevant part: “In charging an offense, each count shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains in substance, a statement that the accused has committed some public offense therein specified. Such statement may be made in ordinary and concise language without any technical averments or any allegations of matter not essential to be proved. It may be in the words of the enactment describing the offense or declaring the matter to be a public offense, or in any words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offense of which he is accused.”
Here, the complaint alleged the offenses charged, the appropriate code sections, identified the specific documents at issue, and the dates of the offenses. The declaration in support of probable cause attached to the complaint provided further details. Thus, since the complaint was sufficient, defendant received adequate notice of the charges against him and the trial court had jurisdiction.
Defendant’s reliance on People v. McKenna (1889) 81 Cal. 158 is misplaced. As noted by the court in People v. Finley (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 206, 211, this case “was decided in 1889 prior to the 1927 and 1929 amendments to section 952 simplifying and liberalizing the rules of pleading in criminal cases [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 211.)
Defendant asserts that the complaint fails to explain why the documents were false and forged. He further claims that there was “no evidence of prior determination by any court, civil or criminal, that the instruments were false.” Here, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing. If there had been a preliminary hearing, the trial court would have made a finding as to whether there was probable cause to conclude that defendant committed the charged offenses.
Defendant also asserts that the declaration in support of probable cause does not state facts relating to the identity and source of incriminating information and thus the arrest warrant was invalid.
“A complaint based on ‘information and belief’ and couched in the statutory language of the alleged offense may support a valid arrest warrant if the complaint alleges sufficient facts for the magistrate to conclude that probable cause supports the warrant in that the allegations indicate (1) the commission of the crime by the person whose arrest is sought, and (2) that reliability of the information and credibility of its source.” (People v. Sesslin (1968) 68 Cal.2d 418, 425-426.) Here, the complaint and the attached declaration in support of probable cause referred to the investigation conducted by Detective C. Guerrero and Jamie Gauthier, district attorney investigator, in which they discovered that defendant had filed false documents on six properties that were facing foreclosure in Morgan Hill. Defendant signed his notarized name on each of these documents. Thus, there were sufficient facts to conclude that probable cause supported defendant’s arrest for the charged offenses.
Defendant claims that no statute, ordinance or regulation prohibits the conduct of which he was accused. As previously stated, the complaint specified the relevant code sections.
Defendant argues that the relevant documents were filed with the county recorder and since the county recorder is prohibited from practicing law, there is “no evidence of prior determination by any court, civil or criminal, that the instruments were false; nor any substantive reason having been made prior to the institution of the prosecution, and none since, the charges are without legal basis.” Defendant overlooks the fact that the parties stipulated to a factual basis for defendant’s plea to five counts of recording a false document (§ 115) and one count of using personal identifying information without authorization, in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (a).
Defendant points out that Gauthier declared under penalty of perjury that a declaration in support of probable cause was attached and incorporated by reference. Defendant again claims that the declaration was not “attached” to the complaint. Thus, he argues that the complaint is void because Gauthier committed perjury. As previously stated, the trial court found that the document had been attached.

B. Probable Cause Determination
Defendant contends that his constitutional rights were “compromised by the substantially delayed probable cause determinations.” (Capitalization omitted.) He claims that his arraignment did not occur within two days of his arrest (§ 821) and the preliminary hearing did not occur within 10 court days after the arraignment (§ 859b).
Here, defendant waived arraignment at his initial appearance in Santa Clara County, had the matter continued to hire counsel, entered a 60-day time waiver, continued the matter, and then failed to appear in February 2014 to enter his plea. At that time, he was in custody on the Sacramento County case and remained in custody on that case until June 14, 2016. On June 15, 2016, defendant appeared in court in Santa Clara County. The public defender made a special appearance. Five days later, defendant waived his right to counsel and filed a demurrer to the complaint. After the trial court overruled the demurrer, defendant refused to enter a plea. The prosecutor presented an offer and the parties continued the case to provide defendant with the opportunity to consider it. Since the delays in proceedings were the result of defendant’s waiver of his rights, the lengthy prosecution of his case in Sacramento County, and his decisions regarding retained counsel and representing himself, there was no violation of defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights.
C. Right to Counsel
Defendant argues that he was denied the right to counsel on October 9 and October 31, 2013.
“Under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 15, of the California Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to the assistance of counsel.” (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215.)
Here, the public defender made a special appearance on behalf of defendant on October 9, 2013. At that time, defendant stated that he wanted to hire counsel and the case was continued. On October 31, 2013, defendant appeared without counsel and the case was continued again until December 12, 2013, when he appeared with counsel. Thus, the record establishes that there was no violation of defendant’s right to counsel.
Defendant next contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance on December 12, 2013, and thereafter.
“ ‘In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant bears the burden of demonstrating, first, that counsel’s performance was deficient because it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness [¶] . . . under prevailing professional norms.” [Citations.] . . . If a defendant meets the burden of establishing that counsel’s performance was deficient, he or she also must show that counsel’s deficiencies resulted in prejudice, that is, a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 966.) A reviewing court “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ ” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 689.) “ ‘ “ ‘Reviewing courts will reverse convictions [on direct appeal] on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for [his or her] act or omission.’ ” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 876, superseded by statute on another point as recognized in People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965, 981.)
Defendant claims that there could have been no tactical reason for counsel to fail to request that the trial court proceed with arraignment, read the charges, ask for a plea, and set a time for the preliminary hearing. However, defendant had already waived arraignment on October 9, 2013. The record does not reflect when defendant retained counsel. Defendant first appeared with retained counsel on December 12, 2013. Defendant also claims that counsel was ineffective on January 2, 2014, when he agreed to another continuance. Given that defendant was charged with 27 felonies and discovery consisted of over 3,000 pages, counsel may have had a reasonable tactical decision to continue the case.
Relying on section 859b, defendant argues counsel was incompetent for failing to seek a dismissal of the case on January 2, 2014, since defendant did not personally waive his right to a preliminary hearing for more than 60 days. Defendant entered a 60-day time waiver on October 31, 2013, which would have expired on December 30, 2013. However, defendant was not entitled to dismissal. Section 859b provides in relevant part that “[t]he magistrate shall dismiss the complaint if the preliminary examination is set or continued more than 60 days from the date of the arraignment, plea, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1367) of Title 10 of Part 2, unless the defendant personally waives his or her right to a preliminary examination within the 60 days.” Here, the parties stipulated on January 2, 2014, to a continuance to February 18, 2014, to enter a plea. At that time, defendant failed to appear. Thereafter, when defendant returned to Santa Clara County, he proceeded in propria persona.
Defendant also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a demurrer to the complaint. As previously discussed, there was no merit to the demurrer.
In sum, defendant has failed to establish that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.

D. Breach of Duty by Prosecutor
Defendant argues that the prosecutor breached her duty by making false and misleading statements. Defendant again points out that the complaint stated that a declaration in support of probable cause was “attached,” but it was not “attached.” Defendant claims that the prosecutor made a false statement in claiming that the declaration was filed with the complaint. As both the trial court and the prosecutor tried to explain to defendant, the declaration need not be actually attached to the complaint in the court’s file. Defendant faults the prosecutor for stating that her records showed that the declaration was filed with the court and that his counsel received a copy. Defendant notes that his counsel informed the court on January 2, 2014, “We’re still awaiting discovery.” However, counsel’s statement does not indicate that a copy of the declaration had not been provided to defense counsel. Defendant has failed to show misconduct by the prosecutor.

E. Judicial Bias
Defendant contends that the trial court demonstrated bias by failing to hold a hearing on his demurrer to the complaint. Defendant claims that the trial court “showed partiality to the prosecution by accepting without evidentiary hearing, representations that the [declaration in support of probable cause] was attached to the Complaint and that essential elements of the ‘fraud’ were sufficiently alleged in the Complaint.” There was no need for an evidentiary hearing for the trial court to explain to defendant how documents are placed in the court’s file. As previously discussed, the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer.
Defendant next claims the trial court demonstrated bias by failing to recuse when assigned his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the trial court “could not now rule in favor of appellant” because it failed “to make rulings on the same issues when brought by demurrer.” There is no merit to this claim.
Defendant also argues that the trial court demonstrated bias by ignoring his motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint was void for failure to establish probable cause. The record refutes this argument. The trial court stated that it had already decided the issue.

IV. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.






_______________________________
Mihara, J.



WE CONCUR:






_____________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.






_____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.