Ray v. Avila CA6
Filed 9/28/23 Ray v. Avila CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHARLENE RAY, H050296 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 21CV000532)
v.
CARMEN AVILA,
Defendant and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Charlene Ray, representing herself, appeals from an order denying her request for a civil harassment restraining order against respondent Carmen Avila.2 Because Ms. Ray
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852-855.) 2 In her opening brief, Ms. Ray seeks review of several orders issued in different trial court actions. The notice of appeal filed in the instant action seeks review of a May 5, 2022 order issued in Monterey County Superior Court case No. 21CV000532. The record designated—but not cited (see discussion, post)—by Ms. Ray confirms that the only defendant in the referenced trial court action was Ms. Avila. Ms. Ray filed a separate notice of appeal in trial court case No. 21CV000881, Sanchez v. Ray, which this court designated as appeal No. H050386. On its own motion, this court takes judicial notice of the docket in appeal No. H050386, as well as the record filed therein. Ms. Ray addresses trial court case No. 21CV000881 in the opening brief she filed here, but appeal No. H050386 was dismissed by this court when Ms. Ray failed to pay the filing fee required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.100(b). Prior to dismissal, this court denied Ms. Ray’s request to strike the notice of appeal filed in case No. H050386 and instead file the notice in the instant appeal. We did so without prejudice to Ms. Ray filing a request to consolidate the appeals. She did not make such a request. Nor has she filed notices of
has not provided an adequate opening brief to enable meaningful appellate review, we affirm. We appreciate Ms. Ray’s respectful expression of her disappointment with the justice system, and the effort she made to appear before us. From oral argument, we recognize that Ms. Ray’s experience of the justice system has been a source of great distress to her. It was apparent from her presentation that she feels that law enforcement, the trial court, and others in positions of authority have not afforded her a proper hearing, and that they have taken no action to redress the wrongs she perceives she has suffered. However, as we mentioned at oral argument, there are strict rules that govern our review of trial court orders. We are required to presume that the trial court’s order is correct. The appellant, here Ms. Ray, bears the burden of affirmatively showing an error based on the record presented to the trial court. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) The appellant’s opening brief must provide a summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record, include record citations in support of factual assertions, identify the relief sought, and explain why the order appealed from is appealable. (Cal. Rules Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C).) The appellant must also include in the brief argument and legal authority to support their contentions. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “This burden requires more than a mere assertion that the judgment is wrong. ‘Issues do not have a life of their own: If they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, [they are] . . . waived.’ [Citation.] It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness. When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)