Williams v. Michels CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 5, 2024 No. F087042Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the domestic violence restraining order, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record for review and failed to comply with appellate briefing requirements.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting a domestic violence restraining order without sufficient evidence.
Whether the appellant's failure to provide a reporter's transcript precludes appellate review of factual findings.
Whether the appellant's failure to follow briefing rules constitutes a forfeiture of claims on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Absent said transcript, he has “no basis upon which to argue that the evidence adduced at [the hearing] was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding[s]””

“When a reporter’s transcript is not provided by an appellant, “we must treat this as an appeal ‘on the judgment roll,’ ” “ ‘ “conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the [superior court’s] findings,” ’ ””

“The August 23, 2023 domestic violence restraining order is affirmed.”

Filed 8/5/24 Williams v. Michels 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ANITA WILLIAMS, F087042 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. S1501FL617675) v.

VINCENT ALLEN MICHELS, OPINION Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Lisa M. Pacione, Judge. Vincent Allen Michels, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.

This is an appeal from an August 23, 2023 domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against appellant Vincent Allen Michels issued by the Kern County Superior Court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order. BACKGROUND1 On August 3, 2023, respondent Anita Williams filed a request for a DVRO against her ex-husband Michels. She alleged Michels continually posted “threats and rants on his social media mak[ing] [her] afraid for [her] safety and that of [their] daughter.” On August 9, 2023, Michels filed a request for a DVRO against Williams. He alleged: (1) Williams and a male companion recently trespassed on his residential property; and (2) Williams manipulated the legal system to “harass and torment” him several times over a 12-year period. A hearing addressing both requests was held on August 22, 2023. Williams, Michels, and Michels’ witness testified. Thereafter, the superior court (1) granted Williams’ DVRO request, finding “good cause”; (2) denied Michels’ DVRO request; and (3) ordered Michels to “complete a Batterer Intervention Program.” (Italics omitted.) On August 23, 2023, the court issued a three-year DVRO against Michels, which protected Williams, her fiancé, her stepson, and her and her fiancé’s daughter. On October 19, 2023, Michels filed a notice of appeal. On December 7, 2023, he filed a notice designating the record on appeal, electing to use the clerk’s transcript and proceed without a record of the oral proceedings.2 The appellate record was filed January 29, 2024. DISCUSSION “The Code of Civil Procedure makes ‘an order granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction’ appealable.” (Rivera v. Hillard

1 This information is taken from the clerk’s transcript.

Williams v. Michels CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief