Marriage of Chepel CA3

DISCUSSION

Appellant first contends the trial judge “should have recused himself since he knew that there was a conflict of interest or at least the appearance of a conflict of

1 interest.” Appellant has forfeited this claim by failing to support the claim with any citations to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C);1 Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245–1246 & fn. 14 [the failure to present argument with references to the record results in a forfeiture of any assertion that could have been raised]; Miller v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 728, 743 [lack of adequate 2 citation to the record forfeits the claim of error].) We recognize defendant brings this appeal without benefit of legal representation. Nonetheless, his in propria persona (pro per) status does not exempt him from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve him of his burden on appeal. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984; see also Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247.) Appellant next claims the trial court “should have deemed [his] motion a challenge for cause if it concluded that the motion was not timely.” Appellant fails, however, to support his…