Tomi B. v. Andre V. CA4/1

Filed 5/23/22 Tomi B. v. Andre V. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TOMI B., D079049

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21FDV01678C)

ANDRE V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel S. Belsky, Judge. Affirmed. Andre V., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Andre V. appeals a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) that Tomi B. obtained against him. Andre claims there was no proof of domestic violence and Tomi sought the DVRO in retaliation for his moving out of their home. Because Andre has not provided an adequate record or a cogent legal argument for reversal, we affirm.

BACKGROUND While Andre and Tomi were cohabiting, they got into an argument and she locked him out of the home. Andre entered through a kitchen window and kicked a hole in Tomi’s bedroom door. When Tomi opened the door, she and Andre continued to argue, and he “push[ed] [her] around” as she struggled to get him out of the home for several hours until he finally left. After this incident, the couple stopped living together but continued to work for the same employer. Andre contacted Tomi multiple times each day about their relationship even though she did not want the contact. Tomi requested the family court grant a DVRO requiring Andre “to leave [her] alone” and preventing “him [from] coming to [her] home again.” The court granted a temporary restraining order requiring Andre to stay 100 yards away from Tomi and prohibiting him from contacting or harassing her, and set a hearing on a more permanent order. The parties appeared at the hearing and testified. The court found Tomi more credible than Andre; found she had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed domestic violence against her; ordered him to attend a 52-week batterer’s program; and issued a one-year DVRO requiring him to stay 100 yards away from her except when they were at work together and prohibiting him from contacting or harassing her. DISCUSSION Andre claims the family court “erred in finding [him] guilty of domestic [violence] and harassment claims as there is lack of evidence and no statements or reports from witnesses.” He alleges his “wrongful entry” or “trespass” into Tomi’s home was “justified”; “there was no direct domestic violence”; and her “harassment claims were used in a black mailing [sic]