Myrick v. Sekerke CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 2025 No. D085464Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the domestic violence restraining order because the appellant failed to provide an adequate appellate record to demonstrate trial court error, requiring the appellate court to presume the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting a domestic violence restraining order due to insufficient evidence.
Whether the appellant met the burden of demonstrating reversible error on the basis of the provided appellate record.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The incomplete appellate record, however, prevents us from meaningfully reviewing these claims of error.”

“As a “fundamental principle of appellate procedure,” we presume the trial court’s order is correct.”

“Given the incomplete appellate record and the resulting presumptions, we affirm.”

Filed 10/20/25 Myrick v. Sekerke CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA MYRICK, D085464

Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 24FDV04836N)

STANLEY SEKERKE,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven K. Berenson, Commissioner. Affirmed. Stanley Sekerke, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Stanley Sekerke, a self-represented litigant, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the domestic violence restraining order entered against him protecting his sister-in-law Jessica Myrick and her spouse. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm.

I. At the unreported hearing on her request for a DVRO, Myrick confirmed “her statements in support” of her request were “true and correct.” She further testified about a “tracker and multiple break-ins in the past.” For his part, Sekerke submitted a written response, which the court reviewed. After considering the evidence presented, the court found Myrick “met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence” and thus granted her request for a DVRO protecting her and her spouse for a period of two years. II. A. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act seeks to prevent acts of domestic violence or abuse and to separate the persons involved for a period sufficient to resolve the underlying causes of the violence. (Fam. Code, §§ 6200, 6220.) The Act defines domestic violence as “abuse” perpetrated against certain individuals, including persons “related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.” (§ 6211(f).) As relevant here, it further defines “abuse” to mean any of the following: (1) intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; (2) placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or another; or (3) engaging in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined under Family Code section 6320. (§ 6203.) Behavior that may be enjoined under section 6320 includes molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, battering, harassing, making annoying telephone calls (Pen. Code, § 653m), and disturbing the peace of the other party or other named family or household members. (Fam. Code, § 6320(a).) Disturbing the other party’s peace “refers to conduct that, based

Myrick v. Sekerke CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA MYRICK, D085464

STANLEY SEKERKE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CASTILLO, J.

O’ROURKE, J.

AI Brief