People v. Fitzgerald, 101217 SUPAD, 30-2016-00848579

Docket Nº:30-2016-00848579
Opinion Judge:HOFFER, P. J.
Party Name:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM D. FITZGERALD, Defendant and Appellant.
Attorney:Counsel for Appellant: William D. Fitzgerald, in pro per Counsel for Respondent: David O'Barr, Anaheim City Attorney
Judge Panel:We concur: CASSIDY, J., GOODING, J.
Case Date:October 12, 2017
Court:Superior Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM D. FITZGERALD, Defendant and Appellant.

30-2016-00848579

Superior Court of California, Appellate Division, Orange

October 12, 2017

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]

Super. Ct. No. 15NM00197 Beatriz M. Gordon, Judge.

Counsel for Appellant: William D. Fitzgerald, in pro per

Counsel for Respondent: David O'Barr, Anaheim City Attorney

OPINION

HOFFER, P. J.

Defendant William D. Fitzgerald appeals the trial court's order denying his petition to seal and destroy his arrest records, contending the trial court improperly denied his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. He also argues that there was no evidence he had committed the crimes with which he was charged and the trial court was biased against him. In the published portion of this opinion, we find that a petition for record sealing after trial and acquittal under Penal Code section 851, subdivision (e) does not require an evidentiary hearing and that any error by the trial court for failing to hold a hearing was harmless. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we find defendant failed to support his assertion that there was no evidence against him at trial; we also find the record does not show the trial court was biased against defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's petition to seal and destroy his arrest records.

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2015, the People filed a complaint against defendant for fighting in a public place and battery. The matter was tried and the jury found defendant not guilty on both counts.

On March 4, 2016, defendant filed a petition to seal and destroy his arrest records. The trial court heard the petition on March 24, 2016 and denied it.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant Failed To Support His Assertion That There Was No Evidence Against Him At Trial.

“On appeal, we must presume the trial court's judgment is correct. [Citation.] In service of that rule, we adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them. [Citation.] [¶] It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. [Citation.] Thus, an appellant must not only present an analysis of the facts and legal authority on each point made, but must also support arguments with appropriate citations to the material facts in the record. If he fails to do so, the argument is forfeited. [Citation.]” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.)

Defendant asserts there was “no realistic evidence” adduced at trial that he “had acted in any illegal manner.” However, the record on appeal does not contain the trial transcript or any other record of what transpired at trial. Nor does defendant cite to any portion of the record in support of this assertion in his brief. Defendant requested this court to view trial exhibit 10, a cell phone recording of a portion of a city council meeting. However, the video does not show the incident at issue. It only appears to show what transpired during a brief period of time at the meeting prior to the incident. Because defendant failed to provide an adequate record or cite to the available record, he has forfeited his assertion on appeal that there was no evidence against him at trial.

II. The Record Does Not Show That The Trial Court Was Biased Against Defendant.

“ ‘A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.' [Citation.] ‘The Supreme Court has long established that the Due Process Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a fair and impartial judge.' [Citation.]” (People v. Freeman (2010) 47 Cal.4th 993, 1000.) “[T]he United State Supreme Court's due process case law focuses on actual bias. This does not mean that actual bias must be proven to establish a due process violation. Rather, consistent with its concern that due process guarantees an impartial adjudicator, the court has...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP