Opinion
B321203
06-29-2023
MIRANDA CAMPBELL, Respondent, v. JACOB MOLINA, Appellant.
Jacob Molina, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 19AVPT00145, Dean J. Kitchens, Judge. Affirmed.
Jacob Molina, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
LAVIN, J.
INTRODUCTION
To obtain a reversal of a judgment or order, an appellant must affirmatively establish both error by the trial court and prejudice from that error. And to facilitate appellate review of rulings made in the trial court, an appellant must provide the appellate court with a record containing all material relevant to the order or judgment challenged in the appeal.
Here, appellant Jacob Molina apparently challenges a permanent domestic violence restraining order issued to protect Miranda Campbell after a hearing in which he, Campbell, and other witnesses testified. Molina, however, has failed to provide this court with the exhibits admitted into evidence at the hearing and a transcript of the hearing or an appropriate substitute. Because Molina has not provided an adequate appellate record, he has failed to establish prejudicial error. Accordingly, we affirm the restraining order.
We are unable to provide a detailed factual or procedural summary. The 23-page clerk's transcript includes only the Superior Court case summary, a minute order dated April 12, 2022, the notice of appeal, and the appellant's designation of record.
This family law matter was initiated in April 2019 by Campbell. We infer from the Superior Court case summary that Campbell and Molina have one child together and that the family law matter concerns parentage, custody, and child support.
On April 12, 2022, the court held a hearing on Campbell's request for a domestic violence restraining order. The minute order reflects that Campbell and Molina testified at the hearing.
Campbell offered five exhibits-all phone videos-which the court admitted into evidence. Molina offered two exhibits-a photograph and two pages of text messages-which were also admitted into evidence. In addition, two other witnesses testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a permanent domestic violence restraining order which will expire on April 11, 2027. The exhibits admitted at the hearing are not included in the appellate record. And although a court reporter was present at the hearing, no transcript of the hearing or other summary of the proceedings has been provided.
Although Molina did not include the restraining order in the clerk's transcript, he attached it to the civil case information sheet.
Molina filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Molina represents himself on appeal. Nonetheless, he is bound to follow the most fundamental rule of appellate review which is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and "it is the appellant's burden to affirmatively demonstrate error." (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) To overcome this presumption, an appellant must provide a record that allows for meaningful review of the challenged order. (Ibid.) If the record does not include all the evidence and materials the trial court relied on in making its determination, we will not find error. (Haywood v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 949, 955.) Rather, we will infer substantial evidence supports the court's findings. (Ibid.) Generally, the failure to provide an adequate record requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295; see Oliveira v. Kiesler (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362.) Molina appears to contend that the court erred in issuing a permanent restraining order against him.
"Under the DVPA, a court may issue a protective order 'to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of domestic violence and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved' upon 'reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.'" (Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 774, 782.) The statute should "be broadly construed in order to accomplish [its] purpose" of preventing acts of domestic violence. (In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1498.)
"We review the trial court's grant or denial of a DVPA restraining order request for an abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Davila &Mejia (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 220, 226 (Davila).) ...' "To the extent that we are called upon to review the trial court's factual findings, we apply a substantial evidence standard of review." '(In re Marriage of G. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 773, 780.)" (In re Marriage of F.M. &M.M. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 106, 115-116.)
In order to evaluate Molina's challenge to the restraining order, we must consider whether the evidence presented to the court supports the factual findings underlying the order. But as already noted, Molina failed to provide this court with a transcript or a summary of the testimony and other evidence presented. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.130 [reporter's transcript], 8.134 [agreed statement], 8.137 [settled statement].) "In numerous situations, appellate courts have refused to reach the merits of an appellant's claims because no reporter's transcript of a pertinent proceeding or a suitable substitute was provided. (Maria P. v. Riles[, supra,] 43 Cal.3d [at pp.] 1295-1296 [attorney fee motion hearing]; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575 (lead opn. of Grodin, J.) [new trial motion hearing]; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102 [hearing to determine whether counsel was waived and the minor consented to informal adjudication]; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447 [trial transcript when attorney fees sought]; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 [surcharge hearing]; Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657 [nonsuit motion where trial transcript not provided]; Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532 [reporter's transcript fails to reflect content of special instructions]; Buckhart v. San Francisco Residential Rent etc., Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1036 [hearing on Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383, 385-386 [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 713-714 [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 71-73 [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [failure to secure reporter's transcript [or] settled statement].)" (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186-187.)
This is such a case. Because we have neither a transcript of the hearing on April 12, 2022, nor the exhibits presented during the hearing, we are unable to undertake any meaningful analysis of the evidence presented to the court or the merits of Molina's appeal.
In sum, Molina fails to demonstrate prejudicial or reversible error based on sufficient legal argument supported by citation to an adequate record. (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 556-557.) And it is well established that" '[w]hen a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys [citations].' [Citations.]" (Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056.)
DISPOSITION
The domestic violence restraining order is affirmed. No costs are awarded.
WE CONCUR: EDMON, P. J., EGERTON, J.