Hirle v. Stevens

FUJISAKI, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. FDV21815914

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FUJISAKI, J.

Marlon Stevens appeals from a two-year domestic violence restraining order obtained against him by Gina Hirle, as well as the trial court's denial of his request for a restraining order against her.

" '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, and error must be affirmatively shown.'" (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) The appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.)" 'Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant].'" (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.)

The appellant must also "present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record." (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 (Yield Dynamics, Inc.); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)-(C).) An appellate court" 'is not required to discuss or consider points which are . . . not supported by citation to authorities or the record.'" (Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.) "Of course this also means that during trial, the parties must ensure that an adequate record is made of errors by which they are or may be aggrieved; ordinarily, errors not reflected in the trial record will not, and indeed cannot, sustain a reversal on appeal." (Yield Dynamics, Inc., supra, at p. 557.) These rules apply to litigants who act in propria persona, who "must 'be treated like any other party and [are] entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.'" (Cassidy v. California Bd. of Accountancy (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 620, 628; Nwosa v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.)

In this case, application of the foregoing rules compels affirmance of the orders of the trial court. Stevens has provided a clerk's transcript and a reporter's transcript of the hearing where the trial court considered and ruled upon his and Hirle's requests for restraining orders, and his appellate brief raises various arguments concerning things that were said or that occurred as shown by the reporter's transcript. But his arguments are unaccompanied by citations to the appellate record or legal authority, and he also raises points and makes objections that were never raised below. (In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [" '[A] party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court.' "].)

Additionally, Stevens relies in large part on documents accompanying his pending motion to augment the record on appeal. Augmentation, however, "does not function to supplement the record with materials not before the trial court." (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 (Vons Companies); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).) "[N]ormally 'when reviewing the correctness of a trial court's judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered.'" (Vons Companies, at p. 444, fn. 3.) Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify deviating from this rule. (Ibid.)

In this case, Stevens seeks to augment the record with numerous documents, including over a hundred pages of text messages, bank statements, medical reports, and other correspondence. Stevens, however, fails to show that he properly introduced these documents into evidence below or that they were otherwise before the trial court. Although the reporter's transcript reflects that Stevens presented a picture, played videos, and said he had other videos the court could watch, the transcript contains no indication that he tried to present the other documents that he presently seeks to augment the record with. Stevens makes no showing of exceptional circumstances to justify deviating from the aforementioned general rules concerning augmentation. Accordingly, we deny his motion to augment the record on appeal.

In sum, Stevens fails to show any error or reason for reversing the trial court's orders based on the record before that court.

Disposition

The orders granting Hirle's domestic violence restraining order against Stevens and denying Stevens's request for a domestic violence restraining order against Hirle are affirmed. Because Hirle did not appear on appeal, neither party shall recover costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)

WE CONCUR: TUCHER, P.J. PETROU, J.