Moreno v. Moreno CA4/1

Filed 11/12/21 Moreno v. Moreno CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ABRAHAM F. MORENO, D077193

Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019-00066248-CU-PT-SC ) VICTORIA MORENO,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Keri G. Katz, Judge. Dismissed. Victoria Moreno, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Victoria Moreno, who is self-represented, appeals from an order granting respondent Abraham Moreno’s request for an elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order protecting himself, his wife and his daughter

against Victoria, who is his granddaughter.1

1 We do not set forth the underlying facts, which are not necessary for our disposition of this appeal. We refer to appellant by her first name to avoid confusion, and intend no disrespect.

Victoria’s appellate brief does not contain clearly stated arguments for reversal supported by citations to legal authority and the record. This court has nevertheless discerned that the gravamen of her claim is that insufficient evidence supported the court’s decision to grant the restraining order: “There is no evidence stating how I was the type of person they say to me to be claimed [sic] as all they had was a police report when I reported my aunt to leave my grandpa’s house to get the restraining order even temporary upon me.” We hold Victoria’s claims are both forfeited and moot. On the latter ground, we dismiss the appeal. DISCUSSION Under the following basic appellate principles, Victoria has forfeited her claims. “ ‘The rule is well established that a reviewing court must presume that the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact, and an appellant who contends that some particular finding is not supported is required to set forth in his [or her] brief a summary of the material evidence upon that issue. Unless this is done, the error assigned is deemed to be waived. [Citation.] It is incumbent upon appellants to state fully, with transcript references, the evidence which is claimed to be insufficient to support the findings.’ ” (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887.) Victoria has not done so here. Additionally, we are governed by the following legal principles: “ ‘As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed [Evid. Code, § 664], we presume . . . that the court knows and applies the correct statutory and case law [citation] and is able to distinguish admissible from inadmissible evidence, relevant from irrelevant facts, and to recognize those facts which properly may be considered in the judicial decisionmaking process.’ ” (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1531.)