Lethermon v. Lawrence CA1/2 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/27/23 Lethermon v. Lawrence CA1/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    KIMBERLY PINSON-
    LETHERMON,
    A161920
    Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.                                                                     (Alameda County
    SHARALYN LAWRENCE,                                                     Super. Ct. No. RG19034889)
    Defendant and Respondent.
    SHARALYN RENEE LAWRENCE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    A164153
    v.
    KIMBERLY PINSON-                                                       (Alameda County
    LETHERMON,                                                             Super. Ct. No. HG19035385)
    Defendant and Appellant.
    KIMBERLY PINSON-
    LETHERMON,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                     A164268
    v.                                                                     (Alameda County
    ROBBIE WILSON,                                                         Super. Ct. No. RG19034896)
    Defendant and Respondent.
    1
    These consolidated appeals involve three related cases. Two neighbors
    who live across the street from each other, Kimberly Pinson-Lethermon and
    Sharalyn Lawrence, filed separate cases against each other in Alameda
    County Superior Court, each seeking a civil harassment restraining order
    against the other. The matters were heard together and, after taking
    evidence, the trial court denied Pinson-Lethermon’s request for a restraining
    order against Lawrence and granted Lawrence a restraining order against
    Pinson-Lethermon. Pinson-Lethermon also filed a related case against
    Lawrence’s ex-partner, Robbie Wilson, requesting a civil harassment
    restraining order against Wilson as well. The trial court dismissed that other
    case without prejudice on stipulation of the parties.
    Pinson-Lethermon now appeals the orders in all three related cases.
    We hereby consolidate the three appeals and affirm all three orders.
    BACKGROUND
    The record does not contain a complete set of the papers filed in
    support of Pinson-Lethermon’s request for a restraining order against
    Lawrence (at a minimum, missing is the petition itself, filed on
    September 12, 2019, and the register of actions). But from our review of the
    hearing transcript, it appears Pinson-Lethermon sought a restraining order
    against Lawrence principally based on allegations that Lawrence had been
    harassing her by filming Pinson-Lethermon at her home at various times,
    and also based on allegations Lawrence falsely accused her son of knocking
    Lawrence’s daughter off her bicycle.
    For her part, Lawrence sought a restraining order against Pinson-
    Lethermon based on allegations that Pinson-Lethermon had been verbally
    harassing her and her young daughter both in person and on social media,
    including with homophobic rants and threats of violence. She also alleged
    2
    that Pinson-Lethermon’s son had crossed the street to push her daughter off
    of her bicycle.
    The two cases were heard together on November 10, 2020, and at the
    hearing, both Pinson-Lethermon and Lawrence testified. Four other
    neighbors testified on Lawrence’s behalf. Collectively, Lawrence and her
    witnesses testified about various acts of intimidation carried out by Pinson-
    Lethermon, including igniting loud fireworks on multiple occasions, playing
    her car music at loud volumes, shining headlights into homes late at night
    and shouting obscenities (for example, calling Lawrence—who is a lesbian—a
    pedophile and a racist). Pinson-Lethermon denied harassing Lawrence and
    her family, accused Lawrence of harassing her and her son by watching and
    filming them, testified that Lawrence’s witnesses are racist and mentally ill
    and admitted lighting fireworks on only one occasion. She also testified
    Lawrence had been posting about her on Facebook and that when she tried to
    discuss the situation, Lawrence’s ex-wife Wilson drove up and scared her.
    At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Pinson-
    Lethermon’s request for a restraining order and granted Lawrence’s request
    for a three-year restraining order against Pinson-Lethermon. The court
    made an adverse credibility finding against Pinson-Lethermon, commenting
    that it found her allegations to be “unconvincing.” It found that “a lot of her
    motivation was to retaliate [against Lawrence] for what she perceives to be
    wrongful claims against her son,” she “seems to harbor a disdain for lesbians”
    and she harbored a “perception that her neighborhood is racist against her.”
    The court found she had both shouted and also posted on social media hateful
    comments about Lawrence and had been lighting off firecrackers multiple
    times.
    3
    As noted, Pinson-Lethermon had also filed a separate case against
    Wilson arising from the same basic neighborhood controversy, alleging
    Wilson would come over to Lawrence’s house and try to physically attack
    Pinson-Lethermon and her son. She was initially granted a temporary
    restraining order against Wilson. Ultimately, however, in a separate hearing
    also held on November 10, 2020, Pinson-Lethermon’s request for a
    restraining order against Wilson was dismissed. The minute order from the
    November 10, 2020 hearing in that related case states in relevant part: “The
    Court takes notice that this is a compliance hearing after the settlement
    agreement filed on 03/12/2020. [¶] Petitioner states that there is no violation
    by the Respondent of the settlement agreement. [¶] In view thereof, the Court
    dismissed the case without prejudice. [¶] Petition for Injunction Prohibiting
    Harassment dismissed by Court without Prejudice—Pursuant to Stipulation
    of Parties.”
    Pinson-Lethermon then filed timely appeals in all three cases, which
    were docketed separately in this court as case numbers A161920, A164153
    and A164268. She then filed a motion asking us to consolidate all three
    appeals which we took under submission. No respondent’s brief has been
    filed in any of the appeals. Having reviewed the records and briefing, we
    hereby order case numbers A161920, A164153 and A164268 consolidated for
    all purposes.
    DISCUSSION
    Our ability to afford relief on appeal is limited and is governed by rules,
    some of which bear mention here. The most basic rule on appeal is that an
    appellate court must begin by assuming that the trial court’s ruling is correct,
    and from that starting point the burden is on the party appealing to
    demonstrate that the trial court committed an error. (See Grappo v. McMills
    4
    (2017) 
    11 Cal.App.5th 996
    , 1006.) Our starting presumption that there was
    no error includes the assumption, unless the appellant demonstrates
    otherwise, “ ‘ that the record contains evidence sufficient to support the
    [order].’ ” (City of Calexico v. Bergeson (2021) 
    64 Cal.App.5th 180
    , 185.) The
    appealing party demonstrates error only if he or she does all of the following:
    (1) provides an adequate record on appeal that contains all of the relevant
    matters that were before the trial court (see Jameson v. Desta (2018)
    
    5 Cal.5th 594
    , 609); (2) provides a citation to the record for every factual
    statement in its brief (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019)
    
    36 Cal.App.5th 142
    , 156); and (3) makes an argument that is both
    understandable and supported by a discussion of relevant law. (See United
    Grand, at p. 153; Doe v. McLaughlin (2022) 
    83 Cal.App.5th 640
    , 654.)
    Furthermore, even where those rules are followed, an appellate court has no
    power to “ ‘reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or
    resolve evidentiary conflicts.’ ” (In re Caden C. (2021) 
    11 Cal.5th 614
    , 640.)
    The powers to make factual findings, and to believe or disbelieve witnesses,
    belong solely to the trial court. We review the court’s ruling principally to
    decide if the trial court applied the law correctly to the facts it found to be
    true, and that is all.
    Here, we are unable to discern a meaningful appellate argument in
    Pinson-Lethermon’s appellate briefing. Her briefs in all three appeals largely
    re-argue the facts and make conclusory points that are not developed in any
    way or supported by any discussion of California law. (For example, in her
    appeal of the restraining order Lawrence secured against her, she asserts
    among other things that the trial judge was biased against her because of her
    language, pre-judged the case and admitted hearsay evidence.) Pinson-
    Lethermon has asked us to review the transcript of the November 10, 2020
    5
    hearing. We have done so, and we discern no error. There is no indication of
    bias or any other judicial impropriety in the way these cases were handled,
    and the rest of Pinson-Lethermon’s points are unmeritorious.
    Finally, her appeal from the dismissal of her case against Wilson fails
    for an additional reason. The minute order from the hearing shows that
    Pinson-Lethermon consented to the dismissal of her request for a restraining
    order against Wilson, and so there is no basis for us to disturb the court’s
    ruling in that case. A party who consents to a trial court action cannot
    complain of error on appeal. (Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v.
    Hildebrand (1965) 
    238 Cal.App.2d 859
    , 861 [“[i]t is . . . an elementary rule of
    appellate procedure that a judgment or order will not be disturbed on an
    appeal prosecuted by a party who consented to it”].)
    DISPOSITION
    The orders are affirmed.
    6
    STEWART, P.J.
    We concur.
    RICHMAN, J.
    MILLER, J.
    Pinson-Lethermon v. Lawrence (A161920), Lawrence v. Pinson-Lethermon
    (A164153), Pinson-Lethermon v. Wilson (A164268)
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A161920

Filed Date: 1/27/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/27/2023