Filed 10/2/19 Lopez v. Bland 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

AIDE LOPEZ,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOHN R. BLAND, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

D075147

(Super. Ct. No. D544691)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew C. Braner, Judge. Affirmed.

John R. Bland, Jr., in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

John R. Bland, Jr. (Bland) appeals the superior court’s denial of his request to modify his child custody payment amount. Bland contends the method of calculating his payment violates the equal protection clause. Because Bland fails to carry his burden to show reversible error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On April 25, 2017, the court ordered Bland to pay Aide Lopez $507.00 per month in child support for the child they share. In determining the amount, the court considered Lopez’s gross income, as well as Bland’s retirement income and imputed earning capacity income for Bland.

In November 2018, Bland sought modification of the amount of child support. He contended it was a violation of the equal protection clause for the court to add minimum wage earning capacity income to his retirement income when calculating the child support amount, while only considering Lopez’s earned income.

Following a hearing, the court denied Bland’s motion. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

It is a “cardinal rule of appellate review that a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown.” (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.) “[T]he appellant has the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error.” (Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.) If the appellant cannot show error in the record, the presumption of correctness requires us to affirm the order. (Foust, at p. 187.)

An appellant is bound by many rules of appellate procedure designed to facilitate our review of claims of reversible error. For example, an appellate brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 29 [“It is axiomatic that an appellant must support all statements of fact in his briefs with citations to the record [citation] . . . .”].)

Bland’s opening brief presents a statement of facts with no citations to the record. He similarly references facts in his argument section without citing the record. This violates rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court, which requires a party to support each reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the record. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [statements in appellate briefs not supported by citations to the record are improper and cannot be considered].) We deem forfeited any matter Bland has failed to adequately support with record citations. (Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. Golden Tree Asset Management, LP (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 368, 384.)

Furthermore, “[m]atters not properly raised or that are lacking in adequate legal discussion will be deemed forfeited.” (Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 600.) “In other words, it is not this court’s role to construct theories or arguments that would undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness. Rather, an appellant is required to present a cognizable legal argument in support of reversal of the judgment. ‘When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary.’ ” (Ibid.) Issues that are not raised or supported by argument and citation to legal authority are forfeited. (Ibid.)

Bland fails to support his claim with reasoned argument. He does not identify a statute he is challenging as violating the equal protection clause. He does not explain why the court’s decision violated the equal protection clause. He does not provide a reporter’s transcript to demonstrate the court’s reasoning to help explain why the court’s actions were erroneous.

Additionally, although he purports to quote a case, Orr v. Orr (1979) 440 U.S. 268, the quotation he provides does not appear in the case, and he does not explain how or why the case is relevant to the facts before us. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a).)

We understand Bland is self-represented. However, his status as a party appearing in propria persona does not allow for preferential consideration. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) “A party proceeding in propria persona ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[,] consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’ [Citation.] Indeed, ‘ “the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.” ‘ ” (First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1.)

As a self-represented litigant, Bland must follow the rules of appellate procedure and present an intelligible argument supported by the record and applicable legal authority. Based on Bland’s opening brief, we are not able to evaluate his arguments. (See Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 [“An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties.”].) His deficient brief compels us to conclude he has forfeited any cognizable appellate contentions, and the absence of cogent legal argument leads us to presume the trial court’s order is correct. Accordingly, we affirm.

DISPOSITION

Affirmed. Appellant to bear his own costs.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

GUERRERO, J.