Opinion
G054665
06-06-2018
In re Marriage of MARK F. HASSMAN and SARA HASSMAN. MARK HASSMAN, Respondent, v. SARA HASSMAN, Appellant.
Mark Hassman, in pro. per., for Respondent. Sara Hassman, in pro. per., for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 09D002792) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda Lancet Miller, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Sup. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Mark Hassman, in pro. per., for Respondent. Sara Hassman, in pro. per., for Appellant.
* * *
Sara Hassman appeals a postjudgment order finding her in contempt for violation of a domestic violence restraining order. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
Sara and Mark Hassman have been divorced since 2010. In July 2012, the trial court renewed a domestic violence restraining order in favor of Mark and against Sara (restraining order). The restraining order directed Sara not to harass, follow, stalk, or keep Mark under surveillance. It also ordered Sara to stay at least 100 yards away from Mark at all times. The restraining order remained in effect for five years, expiring July 11, 2017. It was properly served on Sara at her home on July 18, 2012.
For ease of reference, we refer to the parties by their first names and intend no disrespect.
Mark petitioned the court for an order of contempt in late 2016 after two purported violations of the restraining order. The trial court ordered Sara to appear to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of the restraining order. At the hearing on the contempt charge, the trial court took judicial notice of the restraining order and the proof of service. Mark presented evidence on two alleged violations of the restraining order. First, that Sara ran towards him outside the Orange County Superior Court and violated the 100-yard stay-away order (count 1), and second that she posted photos and information about him on her website (count 2).
Sara claims if her contempt hearing had been delayed she "would have been denied her constitutional right to timely [d]ue [p]rocess within 45 days." She admits, however, that the case moved forward within the timeframe and thus concedes there was no due process violation.
As to count 1, Mark presented photographs demonstrating Sara saw Mark from about 100 yards away, dropped what she was carrying, turned around, and ran towards Mark and his new wife. Mark testified he saw something in Sara's hand and was fearful it might be a weapon, but it turned out to be a cell phone. He stated Sara came within seven to eight yards of him and his new wife, took their photo, and later published it on her website. Sara declined to testify at the hearing, asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
The trial court found Sara guilty of count 1 only. The court determined Sara violated the restraining order by "running toward [Mark]" and "turning and following [Mark] and taking a picture." The court suspended imposition of the sentence, placed Sara on three years informal probation, and ordered her to complete 30 hours of volunteer service.
DISCUSSION
An appellant acting in propria persona, whether or not a lawyer, has the same burden to affirmatively demonstrate reversible error as one represented by counsel and is not entitled to special treatment. (Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 524.) Sara's opening brief fails to comply with numerous rules of court and appellate procedure. She fails to support many factual assertions with citations to the appellate record. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) She often fails to support legal arguments with analysis that applies legal authority to the facts of her case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116.)
To the extent we can understand her arguments, Sara appears to claim the trial court erred by convicting her of violating Penal Code section 166, subdivision (a)(4) (contempt of court). Mark alleged Sara violated that code section by disobeying the terms of the restraining order. We determine substantial evidence supported Sara's conviction for contempt of court and affirm. (See People v. Tillotson (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 517, 534.)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
Contempt of court includes "[w]illful disobedience of the terms as written of any process or court order or out-of-state court order, lawfully issued by a court, including orders pending trial." (§ 166, subd. (a)(4).) To prove a contempt of court charge, the petitioner must show there was a valid restraining order, the accused must have been properly served with the restraining order, and the accused must have willfully violated the restraining order. (See § 166, subd. (a)(4).)
Sara first argues the trial court improperly took judicial notice of the restraining order to determine its validity. She is incorrect. A court may take judicial notice of court records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) During the hearing, Sara's attorney was specifically asked by the court if "there [was] any objection to the court taking judicial notice of the restraining order that was issued July 11, 2012, in favor of [Mark], with [Sara] as the . . . restrained party?" Sara's attorney made no objection to the court taking such notice: "there's no objection, your honor. The court can take judicial notice of court filings." Sara waived the right to attack any purported error because her attorney expressly agreed with the ruling Sara now seeks to challenge on appeal. (In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501.) The restraining order was valid and in effect at the time of the alleged violations in late 2016.
Sara next contends Mark failed to prove she was properly served with the restraining order. She states she did not recall being served with the restraining order and "[i]t was not explained how the process server broke through [her] apartment security in Los Angeles to serve her." Evidence at trial established the restraining order was properly served on Sara. We disregard Sara's position on appeal, to the extent it raises new arguments, as she exercised her right not to testify at trial.
Finally, Sara argues Mark failed to demonstrate her willful violation of the restraining order. The restraining order required Sara to stay at least 100 yards away from Mark at all times. Trial evidence demonstrated that on September 30, 2016, Sara spotted Mark outside of Orange County Superior Court, at a distance of about 100 yards. She dropped her bags and ran towards Mark, approaching within seven to eight yards. Photographic evidence admitted at trial demonstrated Sara's close proximity to Mark. The trial court properly determined Sara violated the restraining order.
Sara also raises a litany of issues and complaints about Mark, the trial judges in her case, and the judicial system at large. The trial court was tasked only with determining if Sara violated the restraining order beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we determine none of the other issues raised by Sara pertained to this issue, we need not address them.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Mark is awarded his costs on appeal.
GOETHALS, J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. ARONSON, J.