Alfaro v. Grayton CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063265 · 2013-12-10 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2012-00086598-CU-HR-CTL
Trial judge: Joan P. Weber
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: civil
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:47Z · confidence high

The trial court granted a three-year civil harassment restraining order against the appellant and denied his cross-petition. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the appellant failed to provide a reporter's transcript or settled statement, thereby requiring a presumption that the trial court acted regularly and supported its findings with substantial evidence.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Granting of the civil harassment restraining order (sufficiency of evidence) “"[I]n the absence of a record of the evidence received at the hearing it will be presumed that the trial court acted duly and regularly and received substantial evidence to support its findings."”	de novo	error	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the well-established presumption that the trial court acted regularly and supported its findings with substantial evidence when the appellant failed to provide a reporter's transcript or a settled statement. The court properly noted that the appellant bore the burden of providing an adequate record to overcome the presumption of correctness, and since he did not, the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence could not be sustained. This aligns with standard California appellate procedure regarding the record on appeal.
Denial of the appellant's request for a jury trial “The constitutional right to a jury trial applies to actions at law, but not to actions in equity such as a request for a restraining order.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court correctly identified that civil harassment restraining orders are equitable in nature, and therefore the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply. The citation to People v. Englebrecht supports the proposition that the right to a jury trial is limited to actions at law, making the trial court's denial of a jury trial proper. The reasoning is legally sound and supported by the cited authority.
Rulings on motion in limine and discovery requests (due process claims) “Absent this information, we must presume the court acted reasonably and correctly without violating appellant's rights.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the presumption of regularity to the trial court's rulings on the motion in limine and discovery because the appellant failed to provide a record reflecting what the court considered. Without a reporter's transcript or settled statement, the appellate court could not meaningfully review the claims of due process violations, and thus presumed the trial court acted properly. This is a standard application of the law regarding the record on appeal.

Authorities

relied: Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755 — On appellate review of a trial court's order, factual conflicts and questions of credibility are resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the order.
relied: Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412 — The trial court's order is presumed correct, and the appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record to overcome this presumption.
relied: Stevens v. Stevens (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 19 — In the absence of a record of the evidence received at the hearing, it is presumed that the trial court acted duly and regularly and received substantial evidence to support its findings.
relied: Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973 — An appellant who challenges an order without supplying a reporter's transcript or settled statement of the proceedings cannot prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
relied: Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000 — An appellant who challenges an order without supplying a reporter's transcript or settled statement of the proceedings cannot prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
relied: People v. Englebrecht (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1236 — The constitutional right to a jury trial applies to actions at law, but not to actions in equity such as a request for a restraining order.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the presumption of regularity and the burden on the appellant to provide an adequate record when challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. It also correctly identifies that civil harassment restraining orders are equitable in nature, thus not subject to the constitutional right to a jury trial.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court granted Maria Alfaro a three-year civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 against Maurice Grayton after a hearing at which both parties testified and text messages were admitted, and denied Grayton's cross-petition. On appeal, Grayton (self-represented, without a reporter's transcript or settled statement) argued insufficient evidence and due process violations; the Court of Appeal presumed the order correct on the inadequate record, rejected his jury-trial claim as a matter of law, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Issuance of the three-year civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6) over appellant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to show a threat of violence, that his words were protected speech, and that the text messages were not authenticated. “Accordingly, we are unable to meaningfully consider appellant's substantial evidence challenges, and must presume the order is supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court Without a reporter's transcript or settled statement, settled California law requires the reviewing court to presume the trial court received substantial evidence supporting its findings; the court correctly applied Stevens, Estate of Fain, Pringle, and Gee to hold that the sufficiency challenge (and the derivative speech and authentication arguments, which also depend on the evidence actually presented) cannot be evaluated.
Trial court's rulings on appellant's motion in limine and his request for discovery from Alfaro's employer, challenged as due process violations. “Absent this information, we must presume the court acted reasonably and correctly without violating appellant's rights.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court did not identify a standard of review but resolved the issue on the presumption of correctness because the record did not show what the trial court considered or how it ruled; given that evidentiary and discovery rulings are ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion and the record was silent, presuming regularity was the proper course.
Alleged failure to give appellant notice and advisements of his rights and the consequences of the order, and allowing Alfaro's niece to serve as her Spanish interpreter at the hearing. “Again, because the appellate record does not show what transpired at the hearing, we cannot meaningfully review these claims and must assume the court acted properly.”	unclear	correct	agree with court These claims depend entirely on what occurred at the hearing, and the absence of a transcript or settled statement forecloses review under the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to furnish an adequate record; the court did not reach the merits of the interpreter issue, which is a defensible result on this record.
Denial of a jury trial on the civil harassment restraining order request. “The constitutional right to a jury trial applies to actions at law, but not to actions in equity such as a request for a restraining order.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Whether a constitutional jury-trial right attaches is a legal question; injunctive relief under section 527.6 is equitable, and the court's reliance on People v. Englebrecht, which held there is no jury-trial right in an injunction proceeding, correctly disposes of the contention.

Authorities

relied: Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755 — On review of a civil harassment restraining order, the appellate court resolves factual conflicts and credibility questions in favor of the prevailing party and draws all reasonable inferences in support of the order.
relied: Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412 — The trial court's order is presumed correct and the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record to overcome that presumption.
relied: Stevens v. Stevens (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 19 — Absent a record of the evidence received at the hearing, it is presumed the trial court acted duly and regularly and received substantial evidence supporting its findings.
relied: Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973 — An appellant who fails to supply a reporter's transcript or settled statement cannot prevail on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge.
relied: Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000 — Without a reporter's transcript or adequate substitute, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails.
relied: People v. Englebrecht (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1236 — The constitutional right to jury trial applies to actions at law, not to equitable actions such as proceedings for injunctive relief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record, citing well-established authority for the rule that sufficiency and hearing-conduct claims cannot be reviewed without a transcript or settled statement. It also disposes of the jury-trial argument with a correct legal conclusion supported by apposite authority, leaving no argument unanswered that could be resolved on this record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/10/13 Alfaro v. Grayton 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

MARIA ALFARO, D063265

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00086598- CU-HR-CTL) MAURICE GRAYTON, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P.

Weber, Judge. Affirmed.

Maurice Grayton, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Maurice Grayton appeals from a three-year civil harassment restraining order requiring him to stay away from Maria Alfaro.1 He argues there is insufficient evidence to support the order, and his due process and constitutional rights were violated in the issuance of the order. We reject his contentions and affirm.

1 Alfaro has not filed a respondent's brief on appeal. BACKGROUND In this appeal, appellant Grayton (representing himself) has not filed a reporter's transcript or settled statement setting forth the evidence presented to the trial court at the hearing on the restraining order. As we shall explain below, the absence of this information restricts our ability to review appellant's contentions.

The record on appeal includes the trial court's order granting Alfaro's request for a civil harassment restraining order against appellant. The restraining order was granted on January 3, 2013, and expires on January 3, 2016. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 527.6.) The order states that Alfaro and appellant represented themselves at the hearing, and Alfaro's niece (Leslie Peralta) served as a Spanish interpreter for Alfaro. Alfaro and appellant testified at the hearing, and Alfaro submitted into evidence phone text messages.

Appellant was ordered to stay 100 yards away from Alfaro; not to have any contact with her, including by phone or message; not to harass, stalk, threaten, or assault her; and not to destroy her property. The order prohibits appellant from acquiring a gun and requires him to dispose of any guns he owns.

The court denied appellant's cross-petition, stating there was "not sufficient provocation for the threats that [appellant] made in the text messages" to Alfaro.

DISCUSSION

I. Substantial Evidence Appellant asserts the court erred in issuing the restraining order because there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that he threatened Alfaro with physical violence. He contends the statements he made to Alfaro were mere words that carried no 2 imminent threat of physical force; his words were protected free speech; and Alfaro's evidence was not properly authenticated.

On appellate review of a trial court's order, we are required to resolve all factual conflicts and questions of credibility in favor of the prevailing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the order. (Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 762.) Further, we must presume the trial court's order is correct, and the appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record to overcome this presumption. (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)

Here, appellant did not provide a reporter's transcript or a settled statement that would reflect what evidence was presented and considered at the hearing. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 8.137(a)(2)(B) [settled statement may be used if hearing was not reported].) "[I]n the absence of a record of the evidence received at the hearing it will be presumed that the trial court acted duly and regularly and received substantial evidence to support its findings." (Stevens v. Stevens (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 19, 20.) Accordingly, an appellant who challenges an order without supplying a reporter's transcript or settled statement of the proceedings cannot prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992; Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999)

73 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003.)

The record on appeal includes the court's order granting the restraining order, and several other documents filed in court, including appellant's response to Alfaro's request for a restraining order; a request for and notice of a new hearing date; a motion in limine filed by appellant; and a complaint filed by appellant in small claims court. None of 3 these documents contains a full exposition of the evidence presented at the hearing on the restraining order. Accordingly, we are unable to meaningfully consider appellant's substantial evidence challenges, and must presume the order is supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.

II. Due Process and Constitutional Rights Appellant raises numerous arguments to support his claims that his due process and constitutional rights were violated by the issuance of the restraining order. He contends the court erred in its rulings on his motion in limine and request for discovery from Alfaro's employer, which would have allowed him to obtain exculpatory evidence and to prevent Alfaro from presenting prejudicial evidence. Although appellant has included some of his pleadings concerning these matters in the appellate record, he has not provided an appellate record reflecting what the court considered when ruling on his submissions. Absent this information, we must presume the court acted reasonably and correctly without violating appellant's rights. (Stevens v. Stevens, supra, 129 Cal.App.2d at p. 20.)

Appellant asserts his rights were violated because the court failed to give him notice and advisements concerning his legal rights and the consequences of its order, and the court allowed Alfaro's niece to act as Alfaro's interpreter. Again, because the appellate record does not show what transpired at the hearing, we cannot meaningfully review these claims and must assume the court acted properly.

Appellant argues that he had a right to a jury trial at the hearing on Alfaro's restraining order request. The contention is unavailing. The constitutional right to a jury 4 trial applies to actions at law, but not to actions in equity such as a request for a restraining order. (See People v. Englebrecht (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245.)

Appellant has not shown error in the trial court's granting of the restraining order.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Appellant to bear costs on appeal.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

MCINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Gee v. American Realty & Construction Inc. No. A095457 · 2002-07-03
People v. Englebrecht D033527 · 2001-05-09
In Re Estate of Fain B119122 · 1999-10-21
Pringle v. La Chapelle B125935 · 1999-07-28
Schild v. Rubin B052727 · 1991-07-22
Stevens v. Stevens Civ. 20187 · 1954-11-19