Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BS125914, Marjorie Ann Marenus, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Mary Janette Deosie-Cancel, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHANEY, J.
Mary Janette Deosie-Cancel appeals from an order enjoining her from harassing Margarita Mora, Mora’s three children, or Louis Bentley, Jr., Mora’s fiancé. Deosie-Cancel asks that we dissolve the restraining order and award her $3,000 in mental distress damages and $5000 for pain and suffering. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mora filed an application for a three-year restraining order, “Request for Orders to Stop Harassment, ” against Deosie-Cancel on April 15, 2010. The trial court heard the application on May 3, 2010.
At the hearing, Mora testified she and Bentley were engaged to be married, but Deosie-Cancel was pregnant with Bentley’s child. Mora testified Deosie-Cancel had left her several threatening telephone messages, saying “she was going to confront me face to face and she is going to punch me in my face. She also stated to Louis Bentley that she is going to beat the shit out of me and that she was going to go to my daughter’s school.... ” Mora testified that Deosie-Cancel accessed Bentley’s bank account, which she threatened to clean out; accessed his phone account, changing his access information and forwarding his voicemail to herself; and entered his apartment and took several documents.
Bentley testified that his relationship with Deosie-Cancel ended on April 1, 2010, but thereafter she physically attacked him; threatened him, Mora, and their daughter; and accessed his phone account to send herself fake text messages purportedly from him.
Finding several text messages sent by Deosie-Cancel to Bentley to be “very disturbing, ” the trial court granted the restraining order. The order enjoined Deosie-Cancel from approaching, contacting or harassing Mora, Bentley, their daughter, or Mora’s other two children and instructed her to relinquish any firearm in her possession or control. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 527.6, 527.9.) The injunction was set to expire in one year. Deosie-Cancel appealed.
DISCUSSION
Deosie-Cancel contends Mora and Bentley committed perjury during the hearing: She never threatened Mora, Bentley or their daughter, did not send the text or voicemail messages alleged, and did not interfere with Bentley’s bank or phone accounts. She contends she desires only that Mora and Bentley permit contact between her newborn child and his half-sister, Bentley’s daughter by Mora. Deosie-Cancel asks that we dissolve the restraining order and award her damages in the amount of $8,000.
A restraining order is appealable as an order granting an injunction. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) An order of the lower court is presumed correct: error must be affirmatively shown. (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1201.) It is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate reversible error. (Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 516, 529.)
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, “A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek... an injunction prohibiting harassment....” “‘Harassment’” includes “unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (b).) “‘Course of conduct, ’” in turn, is “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, fax, or computer e-mail.” (Id., subd. (b)(3).)
Essentially contending the restraining order is unsupported by substantial evidence, Deosie-Cancel asks that we credit her version of events and discredit Mora’s and Bentley’s. We are powerless to do so.
Conflicts in testimony must be resolved by a trial court—an appellate court examines only errors of law. “‘[T]he power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, ’ to support the trial court’s findings. [Citations.] ‘We must therefore view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving [her] the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in [her] favor....’ [Citation.]” (Estate of Leslie (1984) 37 Cal.3d 186, 201.) “If, on any material point, the testimony is in conflict, it must be assumed that the [trial court] resolved the conflict in favor of the prevailing party.” (Gjurich v. Fieg (1913) 164 Cal.429, 431.)
Here, the trial court’s order is supported by the testimony of Mora and Bentley to the effect that Deosie-Cancel persistently harassed them. Although Deosie-Cancel contradicts their testimony and denies she harassed them, the trial court resolved the conflict in Mora’s favor. We, as an appellate court, cannot substitute our conclusions for those of the trial court.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J.ROTHSCHILD, J.