S.B., in pro per. for Defendant and Appellant. N.T., in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 13V001783) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Renee E. Wilson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. S.B., in pro per. for Defendant and Appellant. N.T., in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
The trial court granted a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Family Code, § 6200 et seq.; all statutory references are to this code) in favor of N.T. against her former boyfriend, S.B. S.B. contends N.T. did not prove he engaged in domestic violence. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In August 2014, N.T. filed a request for a restraining order (§ 6200 et seq.) against S.B. on behalf of herself and her three sons. This was the third time one of the parties had asked for this relief. The court previously had denied S.B.'s request for a restraining order in September 2013, and N.T.'s request for a restraining order in June 2014, finding neither party proved domestic violence had occurred (§ 6203).
In the present case, N.T. noted that the court had denied her prior request for a restraining order after S.B. promised the court he would "walk away and leave" N.T. alone because he was returning to Jordan to get married and did not want a restraining order on his record. He agreed not to call, text, leave messages, e-mail or follow her. Nevertheless S.B. sent her a series of harassing e-mails on July 21, 2014, and ignored N.T.'s request to stop calling her. N.T. alleged on August 21, 2014, S.B. followed her from her home in Orange to a local gas station. When she pulled up to the gas pump, S.B. exited his car, called her a whore and yelled profanities at her while taking photographs of her. N.T. also alleged S.B. had waited for her outside her home and called her from various phone numbers almost daily. He also phoned N.T.'s sister, screaming at her and calling N.T. names.
S.B. filed a response claiming N.T. had initiated contact with him. He admitted sending her an e-mail "to explain in detail how" he felt about the end of their relationship so they could move on [with their] lives." He claimed he coincidentally ran into N.T. at the gas station in Orange after dropping off a limousine customer. When he spotted her with "someone else," he decided to take a photo to show the police because he had been "getting a lot of threats on the phone from [a] man claiming to be" N.T.'s new boyfriend. He admitted phoning N.T.'s sister to inform her of the threats, but denied calling N.T. names at the gas station or making insulting remarks about her to N.T.'s sister, and accused N.T. of lying, manipulation, and "play[ing] with" his life. S.B. also claimed N.T. was afraid he was going to testify in her divorce case, and that she accused people of threatening her "to get away with her lifestyle dating multiple [men at] the same time . . . ."
Both parties and several other witnesses testified at the hearing on N.T.'s petition. The court admitted into evidence various exhibits, including e-mails, phone logs, and voicemails. The court also reviewed the court file and noted it had admonished S.B. at the last hearing he was to have no further contact with N.T. The minute order provides the court found N.T. "credible" and S.B.'s behavior "harassing." The court found S.B. committed domestic violence (Fam. Code, § 6203), and issued a restraining order for a period of five years.
A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct, all presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and an appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error in the proceedings below. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) An appellant must support the claim of error by providing an adequate record that supports the appellant's statement of the facts, and must provide legal authority to support each analytical point made. (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.)
S.B. has elected to proceed with his appeal on a clerk's transcript (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.121, 8.122), which we treat as an appeal on the "judgment roll." (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083 (Allen).) The appellate record therefore does not contain a reporter's transcript of the contested hearing in this matter. When an appeal is on the judgment roll we conclusively presume sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court's findings. (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Our review is limited to determining whether any error appears on the face of the record. (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521.) These restrictive rules of appellate procedure apply even where a person represents himself on appeal. (Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121; Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)
S.B.'s brief lacks a coherent factual statement, legal argument, citations to the record, and pertinent legal authority. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)-(C).) He contends he objected to "all of the evidence" N.T. presented, and also apparently complains no evidence supports N.T.'s claim he harassed her at the gas station. These claims cannot be reviewed without a reporter's transcript. S.B. has accordingly not rebutted the presumption the trial court correctly issued the restraining order. We discern no error or abuse of discretion.
The order is affirmed. N.T. is entitled to appellate costs.
ARONSON, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: IKOLA, J. THOMPSON, J.