Ortega

Ortega v. Contreras-Magana CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 30, 2021C092714California847 words

Opinion

Opinion

Renner, J.

I. BACKGROUND

“A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) “This presumption has special significance when . . . the appeal is based upon the clerk’s transcript.” (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981)

1 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Accordingly, we adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.) It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) The appellate record here does not include a reporter’s transcript. We must, therefore, treat this as an appeal “ ‘ “on the judgment roll.” ’ ” (Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90, 93.) Accordingly, we are required to conclusively presume the evidence admitted at trial is ample to sustain the trial court’s findings; our review is limited to determining whether any error “ ‘ ‘appears on the face of the record.” ’ ” (Ibid.; see Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.