Romero v. Gonzales CA5

Filed 10/12/22 Romero v. Gonzales CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FRANCISCO GARCIA ROMERO, F083055 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCU285265) v.

VALDRIE GONZALES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Bret D. Hillman, Judge. Valdrie Gonzales, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Randolf Krbechek and Randolf Krbechek for Plaintff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Valdrie Gonzales (defendant or Gonzales) appeals from a default judgment. As described below, Gonzales has failed to carry the appellant’s burden of affirmatively demonstrating the trial court erred when it entered the default judgment awarding damages. We therefore affirm the judgment. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant’s Burden of Demonstrating Reversible Error Appellate courts are required to follow the California Constitution. Article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution states in relevant part: “No judgment shall be set aside … in any cause, on the ground … of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Case law refers to this provision as creating “ ‘the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) Several basic principles of appellate procedure have their foundation in the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. For instance, appellate courts ordinarily are required to presume that a judgment of the trial court is correct. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608–609; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) As a result of this presumption, appellants have the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. (Jameson, at p. 609.)

1 This matter is proper for disposition by a memorandum opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum opinions]; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 [appellate decisions “shall be in writing with reasons stated”].)