Marriage of Harry and Brown CA4/2

Filed 1/5/23 Marriage of Harry and Brown CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re the Marriage of KENDELL HARRY
AND MAYLETTE BROWN.
KENDELL HARRY,
E076951
Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. FAMVS1901549)
v.
OPINION
MAYLETTE BROWN,
Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Carlos M. Cabrera,
Judge. Affirmed.
Shinton & Johnson and Thomas E. Shinton, for Appellant.
Zumbrunn Law and Gregory Zumbrunn, for Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Maylette Brown appeals the family court’s judgment against her, arguing that the
court erroneously denied her request for a trial continuance. We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Maylette Brown and Kendell Harry’s marriage dissolution action was set for trial
on February 24, 2021. At the trial readiness conference a few weeks beforehand,
Brown’s attorney orally moved to continue the trial, which the family court denied.
About a week before trial, Brown’s attorney filed an ex parte request to continue the trial
1
on the ground that Brown was severely ill and could not participate in the trial. The
2
family court denied the motion.
When the trial began, Brown’s attorney made another oral motion to continue the
trial, again arguing that Brown was too ill to attend the trial. The family court denied the
motion and proceeded with the trial.
1
The ex parte motion is not in the record on appeal.
2
There is no reporter’s transcript from the hearing on the ex parte motion.
2
III.
DISCUSSION
Brown contends the family court erroneously denied her requests to continue the
trial. We find no error.
As for Brown’s two oral requests to continue the trial, the family court properly
denied the requests because a motion to continue a trial must be made in writing. (Reales
Investment, LLC v. Johnson (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 463, 468-469.) Brown’s written ex
parte motion to continue the trial is not in the record on appeal and there is no reporter’s
transcript from the hearing on the motion, so we cannot determine whether the trial court
properly denied it. (See Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“a party challenging
a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”].) We
therefore must affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion. (Ibid.; Estrada v.
Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 [appellant’s failure to provide adequate
record “precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court’s
determination”].)
In any event, Brown bears the burden of showing that the court’s denial of her
request for a continuance prejudiced her. (People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 861;
Freeman v. Sullivant (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 523, 528.) To do so, Brown must show it
was reasonably probable that she would have obtained a more favorable result had the
family court continued the hearing. (People v. Gonzalez (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1539,
1549.)
3
Brown makes no attempt to explain in her opening brief how she was prejudiced
by the family court’s denial of her request for a continuance, and she declined to file a
reply brief. For this reason alone, we conclude Brown has failed to show, as she must,
that the family court prejudicially erred by denying her request for a continuance. (See
Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125 [appellant must
show prejudicial error].) We therefore affirm the judgment.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Harry may recover his costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
4