Ricardo People v. Hernandez CA4/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/25/24 Ricardo P. v. Hernandez CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
RICARDO P.,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G062014
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022-
01279508)
CRISTIAN MICHEL HERNANDEZ,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Sandy N. Leal, Judge. Affirmed.
Cristian Michel Hernandez, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The trial court issued civil harassment restraining orders against
Cristian Michel Hernandez under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. The
court also denied Hernandez’s petitions for such restraining orders and later
denied reconsideration. Hernandez challenges the denial of reconsideration
on various grounds. However, he presents an inadequate record on appeal
and fails to establish any error. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order
denying reconsideration.
FACTS
Hernandez filed petitions for civil harassment restraining orders
against his neighbor Ricardo P. He has not included those petitions in the
appellate record. In September 2022, Ricardo filed his own petition for a civil
harassment restraining order against Hernandez. He alleged that Hernandez
had repeatedly harassed him and his family, yelling at them and insulting
them without provocation.
Later that month, the trial court held a hearing on the parties’
petitions. Hernandez testified and presented certain videos. Ricardo’s
daughter also testified. After the hearing, the court found that Hernandez
was not credible, granted Ricardo’s petition for a restraining order, and
denied Hernandez’s petitions. Hernandez has not provided the reporter’s
transcript or any other record of the oral proceeding; nor has he included the
court’s restraining orders in the record. Hernandez moved for
reconsideration, but the court denied his motion following a hearing.
Hernandez appealed from the denial of reconsideration.
DISCUSSION
Hernandez’s opening brief is rambling and hard to follow, but as
far as we can tell, he argues: (1) the trial court had no personal jurisdiction
over him for purposes of Ricardo’s petition because Ricardo provided no proof
2
of service; (2) the evidence did not support the court’s grant of Ricardo’s
petition or its denial of Hernandez’s petitions; (3) the court improperly
prevented Hernandez from presenting evidence; (4) the court displayed bias
against Hernandez; and (5) the court violated his constitutional right to bear
arms by barring him from possessing firearms.1 Hernandez fails to establish
any error.
Initially, Hernandez made a general appearance at the hearing
on Ricardo’s petition—the trial court’s minute order makes no mention of any
assertion by Hernandez of improper service. This cured any failure of service.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50 [“A general appearance by a party is equivalent to
personal service of summons on such party”].)
Hernandez’s remaining contentions are doomed from the start for
failure to provide a record of the oral proceedings in the trial court. A
judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden of
providing an adequate record that affirmatively proves error. (Acquire II, Ltd.
v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 970.) If no record of
oral proceedings is provided and no error is apparent on the face of the
record, an appellate court will conclusively presume that the evidence
supported the trial court’s findings. (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th
973, 992.) We see no error on the face of the record. Nothing in the record
shows the court improperly limited Hernandez’s presentation of evidence or
displayed bias against him. We cannot assess the sufficiency of the evidence
presented at the hearing. And Hernandez’s claim regarding his right to bear
1 Although the record does not expressly show that the trial court
prohibited Hernandez from possessing firearms, Code of Civil Procedure
section 527.6, subdivision (u)(1) applies that prohibition to every person
subject to a civil harassment restraining order.
3
arms is forfeited because the record does not show whether he objected on
that ground in the trial court. (Hepner v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1997)
52 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486 [constitutional claims forfeited if not raised in
trial court].) Accordingly, Hernandez has established no error.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying reconsideration is affirmed. No
costs are awarded.
O’LEARY, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
GOETHALS, J.
SANCHEZ, J.
4