Opinion
F066047
03-25-2014
MIRIAM CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ESTEBAN MUNOS MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Esteban Munos Martinez, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 12CECG02409)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Dale Ikeda, Judge.
Esteban Munos Martinez, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant, Esteban Munos Martinez, appeals from an order that restrains him from harassing, contacting, or being within 100 yards of Miriam Chavez and her two children for a period of three years. This order was filed on August 20, 2012.
However, appellant has not set forth any argument pertaining to the August 20, 2012, restraining order. Rather, appellant's brief appears to focus on a March 29, 2013, arrest and an alleged Fourth Amendment violation related somehow to computers and artificial beings.
An appellate court is governed by the record and will not consider facts outside that record. (Oldenkott v. American Electric, Inc. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 198, 207.) Accordingly, even if appellant had set forth a comprehensible argument regarding his March 29, 2013, arrest, any claims relating to that arrest are outside the scope of review. Our review in this appeal is limited to the order appealed from, i.e., the August 20, 2012, restraining order.
Appellant has the burden to show that the trial court committed reversible error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575.) Appellant failed to meet this burden. Therefore, the order is affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. No costs are awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.891(4).)