Opinion
D057798
12-21-2011
In re the Marriage of LEMUEL AGEO GOMEZ and REYNA MEDINA GOMEZ. LEMUEL AGEO GOMEZ, Respondent, v. REYNA MEDINA GOMEZ, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. D511402)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lorna A. Alksne, Judge. Affirmed.
Reyna Medina Gomez (Reyna) appeals from a family court's judgment of dissolution that listed each party's separate assets and concluded the community owned no assets. The family court ruled that neither Reyna nor her former husband, Lemuel Ageo Gomez (Lemuel), will pay child or spousal support, ordered Lemuel to contact Reyna before using any medical providers for their minor child, and required Reyna to approve and make any such medical appointment.
Lemuel asserts, "We do not know what this appeal is about because we do not understand any of [Reyna's] arguments," noting she failed to support the statement of facts in her opening brief with record citations or support her claims of error with legal authority as required by California Rules of Court; further, Reyna failed to provide a reporter's transcript. Lemuel contends Reyna has thereby forfeited her appellate arguments. We affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
We detail the contents of Reyna's opening brief to evaluate Lemuel's objections. The opening brief's 10-page "statement of the case" is followed by a 20-page "statement of facts," and neither includes any helpful record citation. The next section is titled, "Argument," and we set it forth in its entirety with only minor correction of punctuation errors:
"The Court erred when non translated evidence was permitted in the case. Denying me of all possible free legal aid.
"The Court erred by not allowing Set Aside regarding real property obtained and vanish by Lemuel who had 100% control to monies assigned for such development[.]
"The Court erred by not allowing Set Aside on Real Estate that indicated Comingling[.]
"The Court erred by not considering the Extreme cruelty, and ridicule I had been a victim of, before, and during trial. because non of Medical or Court orders were obeyed[,] and more.
"The Court erred by excepting Lemuels witness testimony while it was clear it was filled with perjuries[.]
"The Court erred by indicating me I did not needed an attorney just my evidence that when time became at trial, she did not wanted to see in spite of me waiving it at her."
The next section of the opening brief is titled "The Standard of Review," and states verbatim: "The trial court erred in finding separation date and there is no Substantial evidence to support that. [¶] Trial court erred in finding no community debt, when it was obtained for the common good, during marriage, for the support of a minor, if after separation 12/2006. [¶] Trial court erred by allowing non translated evidence. [¶] "Trial court abused secretion (sic) by not granting Set Aside involving real property with questionable evidence."
The following section of the opening brief, titled "Exhibits and Purpose," lists what appear to be descriptions of financial transactions; but there are no citations to the record.
The "Conclusion" portion of the opening brief states: "Appellant submits that the petitioner did not meet the burden of . . . providing sustainable, evidence to proof his claims stated in the Courts Statement of Decision I, Appellant, respectfully request from Court of Appeal to Revert Court orders decision, where applied to protect my rights and not permit anymore of the manipulation, and corruption of our American Justice System being imported from abroad. . . . I repeat once more, I separated from husband end after Xms. 2006. And he has left many string by which sooner or later his fraud, and corruption can be proven. We have substantial community debt he tricked me into with the dream of creating a better life for us, my family, Lemuel, Reyna, and our 2 daughters."
DISCUSSION
We agree that Reyna's opening brief is unhelpful for our review, and note she did not file a reply brief. She has not shown error by an adequate record and any meaningful discussion of the relevant facts and legal principles, as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 8.204. (Accord, Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 249 259 ["The absence of a record concerning what actually occurred at the hearing precludes a determination that the court abused its discretion."]
" 'A fundamental principle of appellate practice is that an appellant " 'must affirmatively show error by an adequate record. . . . Error is never presumed. . . . "A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent . . . ." ' " ' [Citation.] [¶] 'When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' " (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125-1126.) It is the appellant's responsibility to include in the appellate record the portions of the reporter's transcript relevant to her issues on appeal. (Id. at p. 1125 .) " ' "Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs.(In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 875, disapproved on other grounds as stated in In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1070, fn. 3.)
The "Argument" section of Reyna's opening brief is merely a list of assertions. She fails to refer to the separate bodies of law governing each of the separate issues she raises, and fails to discuss each legal argument in detail, with reference to the facts developed in the record. " 'The reviewing court is not required make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.' [Citations.] . . . If no citation 'is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived.' [Citation.] We find this is an appropriate case in which to apply the waiver rule." (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115.) We therefore conclude Reyna has waived the issues raised on appeal. This conclusion leaves undisturbed the trial court's judgment, which is presumed to be correct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Lemuel Ageo Gomez is awarded costs on appeal.
_________________
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
_________________
McDONALD, J.