Filed 10/7/19 Walton v. Dunn-Williams CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Lassen)

—-

GREGORY WAYNE WALTON II,

Appellant,

v.

KATLYN ROSE DUNN-WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

C087424

(Super. Ct. No. FL61169)

This case embodies the perils of self-representation. Appellant Gregory Wayne Walton II filed this appeal complaining that the Lassen County Superior Court erred in entering a restraining order preventing him from seeing his son. Respondent Katlyn Rose Dunn-Williams has not filed a brief responding. Nonetheless, Walton maintains the burden on appeal of affirmatively demonstrating trial court error that has prejudiced him. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) He has not done so. Accordingly, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

At the outset, we observe that Walton is not entitled to special treatment by this court even though he is representing himself without the assistance of an attorney. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) We must hold him to the same standards as if he were a practicing attorney. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) This is not intended to penalize self-represented litigants; instead, it is necessary to maintain stability in appellate proceedings, requiring adherence to the forms and procedures that govern appeals. This in turn supports the appellate court’s independence and unbiased decisionmaking.

Walton identifies two allegedly erroneous orders in his May 31, 2018 notice of appeal: a March 13, 2017 order and a May 9, 2018 order. Walton’s May 31, 2018 appeal from the March 13, 2017 order is untimely as a matter of law, having come more than 180 days after the trial court’s apparent entry of that order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C).)

Walton’s appeal from the May 9, 2018 order is also flawed.

As recognized by the Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564: “[I]t is settled that: ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” Thus, Walton must affirmatively demonstrate error through “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)

Here, Walton has failed to include the complained of May 9, 2018 order in his appellant’s appendix, which alone requires denial of his claims of error. (See Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187 [failure to provide adequate record on appeal requires resolution of appeal against appellant]; Dawson v. Toledano, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 402 [same].) We further note the May 9, 2018 minute order contained within the appellate correspondence, but not the appendix, does not reflect the entry of a restraining order from which Walton may appeal. Rather, the minute order notes that “all current orders from Sutter County will remain in effect.” Therefore, Walton failed to affirmatively demonstrate trial court error (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408) and thus has not overcome the presumption of correctness (Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564).

Finally, we will not entertain Walton’s arguments to the extent they arise from matters occurring after the notice of appeal over which we have no jurisdiction. (See Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 564, 572 [orders entered after order from which appeal is noticed are outside scope of appeal].) As such, we will not consider his due process challenge to the lack of a reporter’s transcript of the October 4, 2018 trial, which occurred after his May 31, 2018 notice of appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent Dunn-Williams is entitled to costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)

/s/

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/

ROBIE, J.

/s/

DUARTE, J.