Ortega v. Contreras-Magana CA3

Filed 12/30/21 Ortega v. Contreras-Magana CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

ELIZABETH ORTEGA, C092714

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20DV01381)

v.

RAMON CONTRERAS-MAGANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ramon Contreras-Magana appeals from the trial court’s order granting respondent Elizabeth Ortega’s petition for a restraining order after hearing. Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the restraining order and he was denied due process. On this record, we are required to affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) “This presumption has special significance when . . . the appeal is based upon the clerk’s transcript.” (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981)

1

126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Accordingly, we adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.) It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) The appellate record here does not include a reporter’s transcript. We must, therefore, treat this as an appeal “ ‘ “on the judgment roll.” ’ ” (Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90, 93.) Accordingly, we are required to conclusively presume the evidence admitted at trial is ample to sustain the trial court’s findings; our review is limited to determining whether any error “ ‘ ‘appears on the face of the record.” ’ ” (Ibid.; see Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324-325.) Here, the limited record we have establishes that on June 11, 2020, respondent petitioned the trial court for a domestic violence restraining order, protecting her four- year-old son from appellant. In support of her petition, respondent alleged appellant touched her son’s genitals and told her son that “this is how he shows his love.” To her declaration, respondent attached reports from physicians who examined the minor child and her report to the police. The police report included a statement from the minor child that appellant touched his genitals on two separate occasions and told the child that “this was how him [sic] loves me.” On June 30, 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing on respondent’s petition over Zoom. Appellant and respondent were both present, both were sworn in, and both testified. The court found sufficient evidence to support the granting of a domestic violence order and granted the order “for five years.” II. DISCUSSION Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s order granting respondent’s petition. In a judgment roll appeal, however, “ ‘[the] question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open.’ ” (Allen v. Toten