Filed 11/15/19 Eidson v. Hodge 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Sacramento)

—-

KATHIE EIDSON,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JADY GENE HODGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

C087694

(Super. Ct. No. 18DV00265)

Defendant Jady Gene Hodge (appellant) appeals in propria persona from the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order against him on behalf of plaintiff Kathie Eidson (respondent). We affirm.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Although the order in question was made after a hearing at which both parties testified, there is no reporter’s transcript of the hearing. Appellant has chosen to proceed on the clerk’s transcript and the original superior court file. His “notice designating record on appeal” identifies various documents and exhibits, including audio-video recordings, but the clerk of the superior court has notified this court by letter dated November 15, 2018, that those items were not found. Therefore, this is a judgment roll appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083.)

In a judgment roll appeal, we must conclusively presume that the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and may reverse only for error appearing on the face of the record. (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324-325.) Here, the trial court found that the evidence presented at the hearing on respondent’s application for a domestic violence restraining order was sufficient to issue the order. Because we have not been given that evidence by way of a reporter’s transcript showing the parties’ testimony, we must conclusively presume that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the order.

Appellant’s brief is largely unintelligible. It lacks a statement of appealability, citation to the record, and citation to authority. Appellant includes a “Table of Authorities” listing four decisions, but none is cited in the body of his brief. Any one of these defects would suffice to make his contentions unreviewable. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [citation to record]; Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 556-557 [statement of appealability]; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [citation to authority].) The fact that appellant is in propria persona does not exempt him from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve him of his burden to show reversible error. (Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247.) Therefore, we do not discuss his unsupported factual assertions purporting to show that the restraining order should not have been issued.

DISPOSITION

The order appealed from is affirmed.

HULL, J.

We concur:

RAYE, P. J.

BUTZ, J.