Opinion
G061855
11-20-2023
LUCILLE NGUYEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSICA T. TRUONG, Defendant and Appellant.
Jessica T. Truong, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. MJV Law and Michael J. Varisco for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 30-2022-01262668, Aaron W. Heisler, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Jessica T. Truong, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
MJV Law and Michael J. Varisco for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SANCHEZ, J.
This is an appeal by defendant Jessica T. Truong from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). The DVRO prohibits Truong from being within 100 yards of plaintiff Lucille Nguyen and her son for five years.
Orders and judgments of the trial court are presumed to be correct on appeal. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant's burden to provide both a record of the underlying proceedings and legal arguments to establish that the trial court committed an error. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609; Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277.) Truong has provided neither.
The record consists of the DVRO and the minute order from the underlying one-day trial. The minute order provides no factual findings aside from the court's finding "that acts of domestic violence have occurred and that [Truong] is the perpetrator, and [Nguyen] is the victim." We thus have no record of the underlying proceedings.
Truong's brief on appeal consists of two pages of various unsubstantiated claims of fraud and claims that Nguyen suffers from mental impairments. She has attached certain exhibits to her brief, but they are of little help to us in determining whether any reversible error has occurred.
Accordingly, Truong has failed to rebut the presumption of correctness, and the DVRO must be affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The DVRO issued on September 15, 2022, is affirmed. Nguyen shall recover her costs incurred on appeal.
WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.