Flores v. Flores

2021 IL App (1st) 190866-UNo. 1-19-0866
Order filed March 31, 2021
Third Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
ANASTASIA FLORES, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Petitioner-Appellant, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 18 OP 79254
)
MICHAEL FLORES, ) Honorable
) Jeanne Marie Wrenn,
Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Howse and Justice McBride concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
Held: We affirm trial court’s dismissal of petition for order of protection, as petitioner
failed to provide sufficiently complete record on appeal.
¶1 Petitioner Anastasia Flores appeals pro se from an order of the circuit court dismissing
her petition for an order of protection against her brother, respondent Michael Flores. Because
Anastasia failed to provide the court with an adequate record on appeal, and that failure has
substantially impeded our ability to subject Anastasia’s claims to meaningful appellate review,
No. 1-19-0866
we summarily affirm the circuit court’s judgment under the principals articulated by our supreme
court in Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984).
¶2 We have gleaned the following facts from the 27-page record on appeal Anastasia filed
with the court. Anastasia filed a pro se petition for order of protection against respondent
Michael Flores, her brother, who lived in Henderson, Nevada. In the petition, Anastasia alleged
that she and two other people needed to be protected from abuse by respondent because she was
“fearful of further threats and abuse.” Specifically, she alleged that Michael flew to Illinois from
Nevada, followed her to a McDonalds, and attempted to take her to an ex-boyfriend’s house to
“have sex with him.” Anastasia called the police and walked away from Michael, who continued
to follow her. Eventually, Anastasia flagged down a police officer and asked to be escorted to the
train because Michael stated that he would follow her “all day.” Anastasia stated that she needed
respondent “out of [her] life” and alleged that Michael was armed and dangerous. She added that
Michael had “blackmail[ed]” her “with the mental hospital that he will take [her] there if [she]
don’t listen to him.” Anastasia further alleged that Michael had broken into her apartment and
taken her mail, keys, and “an order of protection,” and offered her money for her son.
¶3 The circuit court entered an order finding that Anastasia’s petition “presented insufficient
evidence of an [emergency order of protection]” and “does not meet the standards provided for
in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.” The court ordered a separate petition for plenary order of
protection to remain pending and continued the case for a hearing after service of process and
notice to respondent.
¶4 A few weeks later, the court entered a disposition order, continuing Anastasia’s petition
for a status hearing. It further ordered an alias summons to issue “1st” and noted that respondent
-2-
No. 1-19-0866
resided out of state. On the same date, the court entered an order stating that Anastasia’s “motion
is stricken and this case is taken off call.” The order explained that Anastasia had withdrawn her
motion. However, the record on appeal contains no motion filed by Anastasia, and it is not clear
to what motion the court was referring.
¶5 After another continuance, the court entered an order dismissing Anastasia’s petition
“after hearing.”
¶6 Anastasia timely appealed. In her notice of appeal, Anastasia stated that she was denied
an order of protection against Michael because he “is a cop and knows court officials
(employees) and judge(s) in the case.” She further stated that she needs an order of protection
against Michael because he threatened her life.
¶7 On appeal, petitioner argues the circuit court “sided” with respondent because they were
“friends” and spoke privately before the hearing. She claims that the court should have granted
her a two-year order of protection “to protect her life from [respondent].”1
¶8 It is well established that “an appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete
record of the proceedings at trial to support a claim of error, and in the absence of such a record
on appeal, it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with law
and had a sufficient factual basis.” Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). Any doubts
that arise from the incompleteness of the record shall be resolved against the appellant. Id.¶9 In the present case, the record does not contain a report of the trial court proceedings,
specifically the hearing during which the court dismissed petitioner’s petition. Nor does the
1
Michael did not file a brief. This court ordered this appeal taken on only petitioner’s brief and
the record on appeal. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128,
131-33 (1976).
-3-
No. 1-19-0866
record contain a suitable substitute for a report of proceedings of that hearing, such as a
bystander’s report (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c)) or an agreed statement of facts (Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 323(d)).Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 323 (eff. July 1, 2017), in lieu of a
trial court transcript, an appellant may file a bystander’s report (Rule 323(c)) or an agreed
statement of facts (Rule 323(d)). Rather, the record on appeal consists in its entirety of a 27-page
common law record containing documents from the court file.
¶ 10 Based on the court’s order, we know that it held a hearing and dismissed petitioner’s
petition. But unfortunately, because we are without the benefit of a transcript, we cannot
ascertain what evidence, testimony, or arguments were presented to the court. Nor do we know
what findings the court made or the reasoning and rationale that formed the basis of the trial
court’s judgment.
¶ 11 Under these circumstances, it is simply impossible to review the trial court’s reasoning or
the basis for its ruling. The law requires us, instead, to presume that the trial court acted in
conformity with the law and ruled properly after considering the evidence before it. Corral v.
Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156-57 (2005); Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92. On this
basis, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition for an order of protection.
¶ 12 The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
¶ 13 Affirmed.
-4-