Opinion
A150458
11-08-2017
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLOTTE L. JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSF15-00433) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
Defendant Charlotte L. Johnson, acting in propria persona, appeals from an order requiring her to pay $50 per month in child support arrearages. No respondent's brief has been filed.
Defendant's opening brief in this appeal consists primarily of vague allegations that she has been subjected to a history of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of various perpetrators. She also appears to allege that at some point her children were wrongly abducted by their father. She concludes by asking that the order regarding arrears be dropped because she is disabled and receiving Social Security benefits. She also asserts that she is not responsible for the arrears because the children "were snatched," and instead claims she is entitled to compensation "for the wrongs done to [her] and her children."
Based on the opening brief, we must dismiss defendant's appeal. The trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct on appeal, and it is the burden of the party challenging it to affirmatively demonstrate prejudicial error. (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125.) An appellant's failure to articulate intelligible legal arguments in the opening brief may be deemed an abandonment of the appeal justifying dismissal. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119 (Berger).) Likewise, a failure to present arguments with adequate and comprehensible references to the record on appeal and citation to legal authority can result in forfeiture of any contention that could have been raised on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu).)
Additionally, the record does not contain any reporter's transcripts. Where the appellant fails to provide a reporter's transcript or settled statement, "it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error." (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992.) --------
It is well established that "[a]n appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties." (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106.) While defendant has attempted to structure her presentation, her brief is extremely difficult to comprehend and her claims are largely unintelligible. Her brief is also devoid of any cognizable legal argument. She presents only a disjointed narrative of the case's background, interwoven with vague assertions and accusations, and it is appropriate for this court to deem the appeal abandoned and to dismiss it. (Berger, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1120 & fn. 7.)
We recognize that defendant represents herself on appeal; however, pro. per. litigants are treated no differently than attorneys. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985 ["A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation"]; (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543 ["Pro. per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys."].) 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 the record and applicable legal authority. (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247.) Because the arguments raised in her opening brief are not properly or sufficiently developed to be cognizable, we decline to consider them and treat them as forfeited.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
Dondero, J. We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P. J. /s/_________
Banke, J.