Romero v. Castro CA5

Filed 10/12/22 Romero v. Castro 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083108 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCU285265) v.

AARON CASTRO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Bret D. Hillman, Judge. Aaron Castro, 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 Aaron Castro (defendant or Castro) appeals from a default judgment awarding plaintiffs $11,339.25 and enjoining him from interfering with plaintiffs’ easement. Castro’s appellate brief does not include any citations to the record and does not present reasoned arguments with citations to legal authority. As a result, Castro has failed to carry his burden as an appellant to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court erred. We therefore affirm the judgment. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant’s Burden 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. One principle relevant to this appeal states that 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.) One consequence of this presumption is that appellants have the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. (Jameson, at p. 609.)