Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 05AS05638
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
This appeal concerns a long-standing dispute between plaintiff Randolphe Alvin Bell, Sr. (Randolphe) and defendant Larry Eugene Bell (Larry) over Randolphe’s right to occupy two parcels of real property in Del Paso Heights. Both parties appeared in propria persona in the trial court and on appeal.
Randolphe sued Larry for waste and, in September 2005, the court granted Randolphe a preliminary injunction ordering Larry not to interfere with Randolphe’s “peaceful use and enjoyment” of the property “as tenant in common with defendant and others.” Larry cross-complained, alleging perjury, forcible entry, violation of an eviction order, wrongful injunction, false prosecution and defamation. He sought dismissal of Randolphe’s unverified complaint, arguing that Randolphe had no legal rights to the property as either an owner or tenant in common. The court “dropped” Randolphe’s motion for summary judgment for failure to give adequate notice.
Following a one-day court trial which was not reported, the court denied “all claims on both the complaint and cross complaint for lack of evidence.” It also sanctioned Randolphe $250.00 for failure to appear at the settlement conference.
Randolphe raises four issues on appeal: (1) the court erred in refusing to admit what Randolphe refers to as “Appendix Tab Exhibits”; (2) the court erred in imposing a monetary sanction against him; (3) the court wrongfully caused him to involuntarily waive his request for a court reporter; and (4) the court erred in failing to sustain the injunction “in perpetuity.” We shall affirm the judgment.
Larry did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment, but nonetheless asks this court to “seriously penalize Randy, criminally and civilly.”
We deny Randolphe’s request for judicial notice of documents appended to his reply brief on grounds the request is untimely. We also deny as meritless Randolphe’s motion to strike respondent’s brief, made during oral argument.
DISCUSSION
We consider and resolve this case under well-established rules of appellate review. The trial court’s judgment is presumed correct. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) Thus, any party challenging the judgment “has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; see also Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132.)
Two important corollaries limit the scope of review in the circumstances of the case before us. First, the appellate court presumes that the trial court followed the law. (Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 563.) Second, “[w]here no reporter’s transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error. [Citation.] The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence. [Citations.]” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992, italics omitted.) With these principles in mind, we turn to Randolphe’s claims of error.
Randolphe argues that the court erred in refusing to admit into evidence the “Appendix Tab Exhibits,” apparently referring to documents included in the portion of appellant’s appendix designated “Appendix Tab A” through “Appendix Tab E.” The exhibits included various documents that appear to have been filed in this and other actions between the parties. Randolphe filed one set of documents labeled “Appendix Tab C” in support of his motion for summary judgment. The difficulty with Randolphe’s argument on appeal is that nothing in the record demonstrates that the “Appendix Tab Exhibits” were ever offered as evidence at trial or excluded over Randolphe’s objection. Randolphe fails to demonstrate error on this record. (Ballard v. Uribe, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 574.)
Next, Randolphe challenges the facts to support the court’s imposition of $250.00 in sanctions for failure to attend the settlement conference. In the absence of a reporter’s transcript, Randolphe may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s ruling. (Estate of Fain, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.)
Randolphe also contends that “at the outset of the trail [sic] hearing, [he] requested a court reporter as an indigent and unrepresented party, the request was denied unless [he] was able to pay reporter fee.” The minute order states that “[b]oth parties waived the presence of the court reporter.” There is nothing in the limited record before us to show any further discussion of the question of the court reporter. In the absence of a record to the contrary, we presume that the court followed the law. (Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 563.) Randolphe fails to affirmatively demonstrate error. (Ballard v. Uribe, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 574.)
Finally, in what appears to be another challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Randolphe asks us to “sustain the [preliminary injunction] in perpetuity.” Again, in the absence of a reporter’s transcript we presume that the record supports the trial court’s findings that Randolphe was not entitled to injunctive relief. (Estate of Fain, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P.J., BUTZ, J.