Washington v. Arrington CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086193 · 2026-04-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 24FDV00806S
Trial judge: Victor N. Pippins
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: family
Panel: Michele M. Castillo (author), Buchanan, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T02:43Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Washington's request for a domestic violence restraining order, dissolved the temporary restraining order, and dismissed the action after finding she failed to meet her burden of proof. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the appellate record was inadequate for meaningful review and that Washington failed to demonstrate reversible error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of DVRO, dissolution of TRO, and dismissal of action “the court concluded Washington failed to meet her burden of showing “abuse” within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, so it denied Washington’s request for a DVRO, dissolved the TRO, and dismissed the action without prejudice.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to demonstrate error, triggering the presumption of correctness. The court relied on the principle that an inadequate record compels affirmance, as the appellant bears the burden of proving error on the record presented.

Authorities

relied: Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 — Presumption of correctness and burden on appellant to demonstrate error on the record
relied: Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570 — Self-represented parties are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than represented parties
relied: Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918 — Trial court findings are presumed supported by substantial evidence and binding unless reversible error appears on the record
relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Authority for resolving matters by memorandum opinion

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the well-established legal principle that an appellant must provide an adequate record to challenge a trial court's decision, and it properly cites binding authority for the presumption of correctness. The court's reasoning directly addresses the appellant's failure to provide a transcript or agreed statement, which is the dispositive issue.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence medium

The trial court, after an evidentiary hearing on a Domestic Violence Prevention Act petition, found Washington failed to show abuse, denied her DVRO request, dissolved the temporary restraining order, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The Court of Appeal affirmed in a memorandum opinion because the self-represented appellant provided no reporter's transcript, settled statement, DVRO application, or exhibits, so the record was inadequate for review and the order was presumed correct.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of DVRO request, dissolution of TRO, and dismissal of action after evidentiary hearing based on failure to prove 'abuse' under the DVPA “the court concluded Washington failed to meet her burden of showing “abuse” within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, so it denied Washington’s request for a DVRO, dissolved the TRO, and dismissed the action without prejudice.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court did not reach the merits; it applied the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to furnish an adequate record under Jameson v. Desta. With no transcript, settled statement, application, or exhibits in the record, affirmance on inadequate-record grounds is the standard and correct result.
Refusal to receive additional evidence and witness testimony at the evidentiary hearing “Washington appeals, claiming the court wrongfully refused to receive the additional evidence she intended to present, including witness testimony, at the evidentiary hearing.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court An evidentiary ruling at an unreported hearing cannot be reviewed without a transcript or settled statement; the court properly declined to reach it and presumed the ruling correct.
Denial of a further continuance to review evidence received on the day of the hearing (asserted due process violation) and alleged tampering with subpoenaed evidence “She also accuses the court of tampering with evidence she subpoenaed and failing to afford her due process when it refused to grant her a further extension of time to review evidence received the day of the hearing.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court Continuance rulings are ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion, but nothing in the record showed what was requested, what was received, or why the request was denied; the court correctly held the record inadequate and presumed correctness. The tampering accusation was unsupported by anything in the record.

Authorities

relied: Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 — Trial court orders are presumed correct; appellant bears burden to show error on an adequate record, and lack of a verbatim record is frequently fatal to claims of error.
relied: Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570 — Self-represented litigants are held to the same rules of procedure as represented parties and receive the same, but no greater, consideration.
relied: Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918 — On an incomplete record, the trial court's findings are presumed supported by substantial evidence and binding unless reversible error appears on the face of the record.
relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Appellate courts may resolve appeals by memorandum opinion where the issues do not warrant extended discussion.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record, citing controlling Supreme Court authority in Jameson v. Desta, and notes the appellant's failure to use the settled or agreed statement procedures. The result is compelled by the absence of any transcript, application, exhibits, or record of the hearing, and the court's treatment of a self-represented party is consistent with established law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/22/26 Washington v. Arrington CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIA WASHINGTON, D086193

Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 24FDV00806S)

TRIESTE SELENA ARRINGTON,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Victor N. Pippins, Judge. Affirmed. Thia Washington, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Thia Washington, a self-represented litigant, appeals from the denial of a domestic violence restraining order following an evidentiary hearing, the dissolution of a temporary restraining order issued in her favor, and the dismissal of her action. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm. In February 2024, Washington filed a request for a DVRO against Trieste Selena Arrington. The same day, the court issued a TRO. After several continuances, the court held an evidentiary hearing in March 2025. Both Washington and Arrington were sworn and examined. At the hearing— and after “consider[ing] the totality of the circumstances”—the court concluded Washington failed to meet her burden of showing “abuse” within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, so it denied Washington’s request for a DVRO, dissolved the TRO, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Washington appeals, claiming the court wrongfully refused to receive the additional evidence she intended to present, including witness testimony, at the evidentiary hearing. She also accuses the court of tampering with evidence she subpoenaed and failing to afford her due process when it refused to grant her a further extension of time to review evidence received the day of the hearing. Yet the record Washington provides is insufficient to allow us to meaningfully review her claims. As a “fundamental principle of appellate procedure,” we presume the trial court’s order is correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) Because of this presumption, “the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Id. at p. 609.) If “the record is inadequate for meaningful review,” we will affirm the order. (Ibid. [cleaned up].) Such is the case here. Washington represents herself in this appeal, and we are mindful that the technical requirements of the appellate process may be difficult for those without legal training to navigate. But a self-represented party “is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than” a party represented by counsel. (Elena S. v. Kroutik 2 (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.) As a result, Washington needed to comply with the rules for preparing an adequate appellate record. She did not. The record here does not contain Washington’s DVRO application, any supporting declarations, the temporary restraining order that issued, any of the evidence lodged with the court, or a record of what happened during the evidentiary hearing. The hearing was unreported, making it more difficult to provide an adequate record. (Jameson, 5 Cal.5th at p. 608 [“lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to have [the litigant’s] claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court”].) Nor did Washington submit an agreed or settled statement of the hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.134 & 8.137.) The incomplete record means “[t]he trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding on the appellate court, unless reversible error appears on the record.” (Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918, 924.) Washington does not identify—and we discern no—reversible error on the face of the record. Given the incomplete appellate record and the resulting presumptions, we thus affirm.

3 DISPOSITION We affirm. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Jameson v. Desta S230899 · 2018-07-05
Elena S. v. Kroutik D068831 · 2016-05-18
People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17
Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions C021443 · 1996-11-07