Tribolet v. Salas CA4/3

Filed 4/1/14 Tribolet v. Salas CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ICELA TRIBOLET,

Respondent, G048286

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12V000709)

JULIO O. SALAS, OPINION

Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Affirmed. Julio O. Salas, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

* * *

Julio O. Salas appeals from a domestic violence restraining order issued against him. Salas contends the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order based on findings unsupported by the evidence. Salas’s appeal fails because he utterly disregards his appellate burden to provide in his opening brief “a summary of the significant facts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) Salas’s opening brief argues the trial court abused its discretion because its “finding of domestic violence was entirely unsupported by the evidence presented.” Despite challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Salas provides no summary of the facts of the case supported by references to the record. The only facts contained in the brief are as follows: Salas and respondent Icela Tribolet “were involved in a romantic relationship for a few years”; Tribolet obtained a temporary restraining order against Salas based on an ex parte application; and at the restraining order hearing, Salas and Tribolet both testified, as did a witness for Tribolet who “at times saw bruises on [Tribolet] but had no idea as to how they got there.” Salas recounted no part of Tribolet’s testimony. Not only did Salas fail to summarize the testimony from the hearing, but he also omitted from the clerk’s transcript Tribolet’s application for the restraining order, including her declaration as to the various acts of domestic violence Salas committed against her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court noted Salas had not “explicitly denied” the facts stated in the application, and the court found the information in Tribolet’s application was “really quite crucial” in proving Salas committed the violent acts alleged. Based on Tribolet’s declaration and her trial testimony, which the trial court found credible, the court issued the requested restraining order. A reviewing court starts with the presumption the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “‘[W]hen an appellant urges the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings it is his duty to set forth a fair and adequate statement of the evidence which is claimed to be