Arredondo v. Mitchell CA5

Filed 7/24/24 Arredondo v. Mitchell CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ANGEL ARREDONDO, F087214 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CECG03900) v.

LANDON AUSTIN MITCHELL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Robert M. Whalen, Judge. Landon Austin Mitchell, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant Landon Austin Mitchell, in propria persona, appeals the entry of a civil harassment restraining order entered against him after a hearing on October 16, 2023, prohibiting him from contacting or coming within 100 yards of four named persons for five years. The protected persons are Angel Arredondo, his fiancée, and his two minor

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

children. He contends on appeal (1) there was insufficient evidence that he harassed the protected persons and (2) the judge who presided over the hearing erred by failing to disqualify himself.1 We affirm. BACKGROUND The appellate record consists solely of the restraining order, the minute order from the hearing on the restraining order application, and the notice of appeal. No hearing transcript has been included. Also not included are any of the papers submitted in connection with the restraining order, including the petitioner’s written application for a restraining order. The minute order shows that four people testified at the hearing, including Mitchell. According to Mitchell’s opening brief, he was arrested in September 2021 and charged with misdemeanor vandalism for vandalizing the property of one of the persons protected by the restraining order. The charge was dismissed on April 25, 2023. On September 23, 2023, Mitchell “distributed flyers to the residents” who lived on the same street as the protected persons, and distributed one to the protected persons’ “residence.” He does not describe the flyers’ contents. DISCUSSION I. Sufficiency of the evidence Mitchell first contends there is insufficient evidence that he harassed Arredondo or any of the other protected persons. However, the appellate record he has provided does not contain any of the evidence presented at the hearing, and thus we are unable to conduct a sufficiency of the evidence review. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [transcript or settled statement required to challenge sufficiency of the evidence].)