Opinion
A166088
07-05-2023
ANTHONY HERRERA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THRESA MOSQUEDA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Del Norte Super. Ct. No. CVHS22-1158
We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1.
BURNS, J.
Thresa Mosqueda appeals in propria persona from a civil harassment restraining order issued in favor of respondent Anthony Herrera after a hearing. We deemed the appeal fully briefed after Herrera declined to file a respondent's brief within the permitted time.
DISCUSSION
Mosqueda's brief in large part consists of disconnected and frequently difficult to follow versions of the underlying events, mostly untethered to citations to the record. Factually, it asserts that she, not Herrera, was the victim of harassment and violence during and after their two-year sexual relationship, and that any actions she took were in response to and justified by his. Legally, Mosqueda asserts the court improperly admitted or excluded evidence; violated her rights to adequate representation and a fair trial; abused its discretion in finding Herrera to be the more credible witness; failed to initiate proceedings to assess her mental competency; and ignored unspecified legal policies and statutory language.
A judgment or order is presumed correct, and it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate error by argument and citation to the record. (Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 649-650.) The court of appeal is not required to consider allegations of error unaccompanied by pertinent and intelligible legal argument and may disregard contentions unsupported by reasoned argument or citations to legal authority and the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); Young v. Fish &Game Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1178, 11901191; Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451, 461; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 11191120.) It is not the role of this court to search the record for evidence that supports a party's statements. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.)
Mosqueda's brief is seriously deficient. Her brief lacks even minimally adequate legal argument. Moreover, few of her factual assertions are supported by citations to the volume and page in the record where relevant matter appears. To the extent her brief provides citations to the clerk's transcript for those assertions, moreover, all or almost all are to proposed exhibits that were neither marked nor received into evidence at the hearing.
We are sympathetic to the fact that Mosqueda is representing herself without the benefit of an attorney, but her status as a self-represented litigant does not exempt her from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve her obligation to present intelligible argument supported by legal authority and the record. (Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247.) In view of the substantial deficiencies in her brief, we conclude she has failed to meet her burden of establishing error.
Disposition
The order is affirmed. Herrera is entitled to his costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
We concur: JACKSON, P.J., SIMONS, J.