Opinion
C083157
06-05-2018
In re the Marriage of THERESA and ALBERT MARTIN. THERESA ARAGON, Respondent, v. ALBERT MARTIN, Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PFL20130145)
Appellant Albert Martin appeals in propria persona from the stipulation and order signed by the parties and filed on August 3, 2016. That stipulation and order resolved numerous issues in the pending dissolution proceeding between Martin and Theresa Aragon. For various reasons explained below, we reject Martin's claims and shall affirm the order of the court.
DISCUSSION
Given the nature of the claims on appeal, we forego the usual recitation of facts and proceedings and instead incorporate this information into our discussion as relevant.
Martin appeals from an order to which he stipulated. Stipulation manifests consent. A party who consents to an order is not aggrieved by the order, and therefore lacks standing to appeal. (Papadakis v. Zelis (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1385, 1387-1388.) Because Martin stipulated to the order, he cannot appeal from it.
Martin argues he was under duress when he executed the stipulation and order. Martin, however, never raised that claim in the trial court. He cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. (See Ochoa v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1488, fn. 3 ["It is axiomatic that arguments not asserted below are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal."].) Moreover, in the trial court he acknowledged that he signed the stipulation "freely and voluntarily." Accordingly, this argument fails.
Martin further contends, without citation to the record, that the trial court erred in sanctioning him. The only sanctions order in the record, however, was issued in October 2014. The time to appeal that order has long passed.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1) provides: "Unless a statute or rules 8.108, 8.702, or 8.712 provides otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of: [¶] (A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled 'Notice of Entry' of judgment or a file-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; [¶] (B) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled 'Notice of Entry' of judgment or a file-endorsed copy of the judgment, accompanied by proof of service; or [¶] (C) 180 days after entry of judgment." Martin filed his notice of appeal on September 23, 2016, nearly two years after he was sanctioned by the trial court. Any claim of error, therefore, is time-barred.
In addition, Martin claims the trial court erred in calculating child support and wrongly imputed him with income. The stipulation and order from which Martin appeals does not include an order for child support (only an order resolving child support arrearages) and does not address imputation of income. It does appear from the register of actions, included in the record, that the court later issued an order for child support on October 17, 2016, then modified its order on November 22, 2016. These orders were issued after Martin filed his notice of appeal; as such they were not included in his notice of appeal. Martin's claims related to child support, therefore, are not properly before this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2) [notice of appeal must identify judgment or order being appealed].)
In any event, Martin failed to support, with relevant citations to the record and legal analysis, his claims of error regarding the court's child support orders. Thus, even were they properly before the court, these claims would be forfeited. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C); see Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655-656 [appellant is required to present legal authority in support of each issue raised, along with citations to the record, otherwise the issue is forfeited]; see also Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113 [it is appellant's burden to support claims of error with citation to legal authority].) Martin is not exempt from the rules governing appeals because he is representing himself in propria persona. A party representing himself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants having attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121 [self-represented parties are held to "the same 'restrictive procedural rules as an attorney' "].)
Martin also "believes" the trial court judge was biased against him. Again, he fails to support his claim with relevant citations to the record and relevant legal analysis. Thus, the claim is forfeited. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C); see Keyes v. Bowen, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 655-656; see also Lewis v. County of Sacramento, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 113.)
Finally, Martin attached several documents to his opening brief as "exhibits" and asks this court to consider them in resolving his appeal. None of these documents are included in the record on appeal, nor are they regulations or rules that are not readily accessible. Accordingly, we must disregard them. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(d).)
"A party filing a brief may attach copies of exhibits or other materials in the appellate record or copies of relevant local, state, or federal regulations or rules, out-of-state statutes, or other similar citable materials that are not readily accessible. These attachments must not exceed a combined total of 10 pages, but on application the presiding justice may permit additional pages of attachments for good cause. . . ." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(d).) --------
DISPOSITION
The trial court orders are affirmed. Theresa Aragon is awarded her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)
BUTZ, Acting P. J. We concur: HOCH, J. RENNER, J.