Filed 8/31/26 Arman v. Burton CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MOHAMMAD ARMAN,
F090768
Plaintiff and Appellant,
(Super. Ct. No. BFL-25-002654)
v.
TOUREA BURTON,
OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Tanya Richard,
Judge.
Mohammad Arman, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Mohammad Arman appeals from a domestic violence restraining order
entered against him. Arman and his wife, respondent Tourea Burton, filed competing
requests for restraining orders against each other. The trial court found Burton suffered a
pattern of emotional and physical abuse and rejected Arman’s claims he was the abused
party. Arman contends the evidence was insufficient to show he committed any acts of
domestic violence and argues the evidence required a finding that he acted in self-defense
during the most recent incident. Burton has not filed a respondent’s brief in this matter.1
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As noted, this case arises out of competing requests for domestic violence
restraining orders that were resolved through a finding that Arman had committed
domestic violence and was subject to restraint. The competing requests were filed after
an incident that occurred on May 28, 2025, although testimony at the hearing also
covered alleged incidents from October 2022, August and November 2023, and
April 2025. Both Arman and Burton were represented by counsel at the hearing,
although Arman proceeds in pro per in this appeal. The following facts were elicited at
the hearing on the parties’ requests.
Background
On May 28, 2025, at around 1:14 a.m., deputy sheriffs responded to a domestic
violence call placed by Arman. The first responding deputy found Burton sitting in her
car at an intersection near the couple’s home. Based on the call, the deputy detained
1 Arman, as the appellant, bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating reversible error
upon an adequate record. (Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1072;
Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9.)
“[W]e do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ (i.e., an admission of
error) but examine the record, appellant’s brief, and any oral argument by appellant to see if it
supports any claims of error.” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078,
fn. 1.)
2.
Burton. A second deputy later questioned Burton while the first deputy questioned
Arman.
The deputies noted that Arman had a significant bruise on his neck, consistent
with a bite mark, and neither noticed any injury on Burton. During her interview, Burton
admitted she and Arman had been in a verbal argument, she followed Arman into a spare
bedroom in their home, Arman called law enforcement because she would not leave the
room, and after he called, she pushed him, he struck her in the face and tackled her, and
she bit him.
Based on this incident, the deputies deemed Burton the primary aggressor, arrested
her, and sought an emergency protective order against her in and in favor of Arman.
Arman’s Testimony
Arman testified he and Burton had been married since 2021 and had three
children. The couple generally lived together, but Arman claimed that due to recent
problems, he set up his own spare bedroom for use when confrontations escalated.
Arman stated he was staying in that spare bedroom on May 28, 2025, because the
couple had a fight earlier that day. Arman testified the fight followed a typical pattern
where Burton would demean him and use “foul language” toward him, often in front of
their children. Although the original fight had subsided, Arman stated that around
midnight, Burton came into his room wanting to continue the argument and became very
angry. Wanting to file a restraining order, Arman recorded this interaction with his cell
phone and introduced the video into evidence.
At the end of the video, the camera shakes. Arman stated this happened because
at that point, Burton charged him. Arman then called law enforcement, and the situation
escalated while waiting for them to arrive. Arman testified that Burton punched him
multiple times, and he had to physically restrain her using a Jiu-Jitsu hold across her hips.
It was at that point that Burton bit Arman. Arman then called law enforcement again.
Arman testified that he never struck Burton.
3.
Arman explained he only restrained Burton once before, but Burton regularly used
foul and belittling language toward him. Arman provided video evidence of another
incident from August 2023, where he alleged Burton charged at him and banged on a
closed door. Both provided photographs and described a third incident from
November 2023, where Burton allegedly threw a plastic bottle at Arman, scratched him
with her nails, bit his arm, and was eventually detained by law enforcement. Arman
stated he did not strike Burton during any of these incidents. Arman also alleged Burton
once intentionally crashed a car into their garage.
Burton’s Testimony
Burton also testified about several past events and the event of May 28, 2025.
Burton explained that she had been considering divorce since 2024, but the couple had
decided to reconcile prior to the May 28, 2025 incident. On that day, the family went to a
park, and upon returning home, Burton asked Arman to clean up their youngest child.
When Arman failed to help, Burton questioned what happened. Arman responded with a
comment that Burton claimed was a long-standing conflict in their marriage, suggesting
her failure to be able to care for the children was why he would replace her with two
other women. Burton explained that under their religion, polygamy was permitted, but
Burton did not wish to allow it in their marriage. Burton testified that Arman would use
polygamy as a means of taunting and hurting Burton. In response to this taunt, the couple
fought, and Burton told Arman to leave the home. Instead, Arman left the space to pray
and then went to bed.
Around 12:30 a.m., Burton got up to use the bathroom. She testified that Arman
entered the bathroom while she was using it to confront her about the fact a trashcan was
placed outside his bedroom window. Arman believed Burton had placed the can there
purposefully and stated it was yet another reason he would get another wife. This
triggered another argument. At some point—Burton could not recall when—she noticed
4.
that Arman was recording her with his phone. Burton did not like this and claimed it was
common for Arman to start fights and then record her reactions.
Burton testified that the two continued to argue as they proceeded toward Arman’s
spare bedroom. As they reached that location, Burton claimed that Arman pushed her
away using the door and she pushed him back. This led to additional fighting and Arman
restraining her and hitting her in the head. Burton stated she just had surgery, and
Arman’s restraint was putting pressure on her incision location, so she bit him.
According to Burton, the fight was an exchange of escalating blows that ended with her
biting Arman and running out of the house. Burton admitted to cursing but claimed she
did not call Arman “the ‘b’ word” as he had alleged.
Burton next explained that the August and November 2023 incidents were
triggered by similar issues. Around that time, Burton learned that Arman had informally
married Burton’s friend. Burton admitted to being upset but denied any physical
altercation and stated the pictures that Arman submitted were actually from a bike
accident around that time. Burton also conceded there had been a car accident in
November 2023, but she denied the crash was intentional.
Finally, Burton detailed two other alleged domestic violence incidents. The first
was around April 2025. Burton explained that Arman left their home at night, and she
ran out after him without covering her head. Burton testified Arman was angry she went
outside uncovered; he punched and kicked her thighs and arm and told her not to do that
again. Burton conceded she did not call law enforcement after that incident, but she
spoke to their religious advisor for help. Burton alleged that Arman was regularly
physically abusive, and incidents occurred 6 to 12 times per year.
The second incident was around October 2022. They were in a car with Arman
driving and Burton in the back seat. Arman allegedly saw and misinterpreted certain text
messages on Burton’s phone and, while driving, began reaching back and striking
5.
Burton. Arman pulled the car over, got into the back seat, and continued hitting Burton.
Burton eventually gained control of the vehicle and drove away, leaving Arman behind.
On cross-examination, Burton admitted that she was pursuing Arman on the video
from the night of May 28, 2025, and was doing so despite his request to be left alone
because she wanted him to delete the video of her. Burton also admitted to not calling
law enforcement after any of the other alleged incidents. On redirect, the court accepted
into evidence photographs of bruising Burton suffered on May 28, 2025. The bruises
were allegedly only visible after she was released from jail because they were covered by
her clothing the night of the incident.
Arman’s Rebuttal Testimony
Arman denied the allegations of prior domestic violence. With respect to the
October 2022 incident, Arman stated that Burton put him in a headlock from the back
seat while he was driving as they were arguing over why their daughter was not buckled
in. Arman denied ever striking Burton and stated he parked the car and was forced out,
with Burton then driving away.
The Court’s Ruling
The court heard argument from both counsel and then took the matter under
submission. The court later issued a 12-page order summarizing the testimony and the
court’s impressions and findings regarding the evidence.
The court’s order began with the May 28, 2025 incident, identifying first Arman’s
case-in-chief. There, the court detailed the testimony of both deputies and Arman. The
court’s summary included some quoted statements and summarizations that are not
clearly reflected in the transcript of the proceedings.2 These included a suggestion that
2 It is unclear if some of the attributed statements were on the videos received into
evidence. However, if some did come from the video, not all statements summarized by the
court related to conduct that could have been on the video. The record submitted does not
provide an indication how the court reached these factual findings. Arman, however, does not
directly challenge them.
6.
Arman sat on his bed after telling Burton to leave the room because “she was ‘in his
space’ ”; a suggestion that it was Arman who testified that Burton believed he worked her
up only to record her; statements that Arman testified that Burton told Arman “to delete it
[referring to the video] right now or we are done” and that Burton would leave the room
if he did so; and an assertion by Arman that Burton “does not get to put her hands on
him.” At the conclusion of the section, the court stated, “At the time the evidence was
received, the Court found portions of [Arman’s] testimony were incredulous, specifically
that he had not physically restrained [Burton] in the past and it appeared to the Court
[Arman’s] failure to recall was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and mislead the Court.”
The court then reviewed the May 28, 2025 incident from Burton’s perspective,
referring to her testimony as her case-in-chief. Again, the court’s summary included
some detail that is not clearly reflected in the transcript. For example, regarding the start
of the incident in the bathroom, the court wrote that Arman “opened the door, recorded
[Burton] while she was in the bathroom and began questioning why she had placed a
trashcan next to [Arman]’s window.” The court also provided a claimed quote from
Burton that Arman “ ‘uses religion to punish’ her.” Likewise, the court stated Burton
testified that Arman “deliberately placed pressure on a surgical incision.” For these
statements, the record does not support exactly what the court found, although in some
instances, the record could be interpreted to fit the court’s findings.
The court then made several findings related to its analysis. These included
finding credible Burton’s testimony that she bit Arman in self-defense, that Arman’s
overall testimony was not completely credible, and that Burton’s overall testimony was
more credible. The court found credible Burton’s claim that Arman struck her and
caused bruising on May 28, 2025, and specifically discounted the video of the incident as
incomplete on that point. The court also discounted the deputies’ testimony regarding
Burton’s lack of injury because the deputies did not conduct a thorough investigation of
7.
Burton’s person and were not aware of the overall history of domestic violence she had
suffered.
The court then found that Arman was “an aggressor” because he dismissed
Burton’s concerns about forced polygamy with a “glib insult,” “recorded her without her
permission while she was in the restroom,” placed his forearm on her incision, and
punched her in the head. The court recognized that Arman withdrew from the conflict by
going to his room but found his prior emotional abuse from earlier in the day, his verbal
attack, his recording activities, and his punching of Burton were not done in self-defense
and instead were done to disturb Burton’s peace. The court found that Burton was not an
aggressor in refusing to leave Arman’s room during the incident. In Arman’s favor, the
court did find that he acted in self-defense when initially restraining Burton but found his
conduct exceeded what was reasonable and that Arman was the first aggressor when he
recorded Burton “while she was in the restroom under the guise of complaining about a
trashcan under his bedroom window.” The court found Arman was emotionally abusive
and dismissive in his conduct and that the “indefensible provocative act was recording
[Burton] while she was using the restroom.”
Related to these findings, the court also noted some facts not reflected in the
record before this court. The court stated that Burton “referred to the video of her in the
restroom as ‘haram,’ ” and Burton biting Aram was a sign of self-defense in part because
“she bit his neck to free herself as she was pinned for approximately five minutes.”
Further, the court concluded Arman punched Burton “in anger because he had been bitten
by” Burton.
The court concluded by finding Arman was the most significant aggressor “based
on his prior physical assaults of [Burton] …; his re-initiating a verbal dispute while
[Burton] was in the restroom; recording [Burton] while she was in the restroom; holding
[Burton] in a lengthy control hold with pressure placed on a surgical incision and
punching [Burton] on the head just prior to her fleeting from the residence.”
8.
Following this, the court reviewed evidence related to the August 23, 2023 and
November 2023 incidents, several instances of past emotional abuse, and the physical
abuse allegations raised by Burton. The court’s recitation of facts generally mirrored
what was discussed above. Again, however, the court referred to testimony that is not
reflected in the record before this court. With respect to the instances of domestic
violence alleged, the court either discredited Arman’s testimony based on the record
before it or made no specific credibility findings in his favor. The court further found
that Arman emotionally and physically abused Burton and the acts taken by Burton
which harmed Arman in the past were the result of self-defense. As part of these
findings, the court determined there were credible allegations of physical abuse as far
back as 2022, and as frequent as 6 to 12 times a year, and of emotional abuse related to
assertions Arman would get another wife.
Based on these findings, the court found that Burton had met her burden of proof
for a restraining order and Arman had not. The court explained that Arman’s “failure to
recall and comprehend questions was clearly a ruse” and “did not find [Arman’s]
testimony to be credible.” The court further found that Arman “uses coercive and
controlling behavior to disturb the peace of” Burton and Arman’s “conduct rises to the
level of domestic violence.” The court therefore entered a restraining order in favor of
Burton.
This appeal timely followed.
DISCUSSION
In this appeal, Arman challenges the trial court’s decision to enter a restraining
order against him. Arman raises several arguments that can be generally grouped as a
challenge to the conclusion that his overall conduct rose to the level of domestic violence,
the trial court’s credibility findings, and the trial court’s factual findings. For the reasons
set for the below, we affirm.
9.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
Under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code,3
§§ 6200–6460), a court may enter a restraining order if the evidence shows, to the
satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. (§ 6300,
subd. (a).) Under section 6203, subdivision (a), “ ‘abuse’ ” means “any of the following:
[¶] (1) To intentionally or recklessly cause or attempt to cause bodily injury. [¶]
(2) Sexual assault. [¶] (3) To place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent
serious bodily injury to that person or to another. [¶] (4) To engage in any behavior that
has been or could be enjoined pursuant to Section 6320.” Relevant to number four, under
section 6320, subdivision (a): “The court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party
from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering,
credibly impersonating as described in Section 528.5 of the Penal Code, falsely
personating as described in Section 529 of the Penal Code, harassing, telephoning,
including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls as described in
Section 653m of the Penal Code, destroying personal property, contacting, either directly
or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing
the peace of the other party, and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good
cause, of other named family or household members.” “ ‘[D]isturbing the peace of the
other party’ ” “refers to conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys
the mental or emotional calm of the other party.” (§ 6320, subd. (c).)
Finally, under section 6305, subdivision (a), the court is precluded from issuing a
mutual order enjoining the parties “from specific acts of abuse described in Section 6320
unless both of the following apply: [¶] (1) Both parties personally appear and each party
presents written evidence of abuse or domestic violence in an application for relief …
[and] [¶] (2) The court makes detailed findings of fact indicating that both parties acted
3 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.
10.
as a primary aggressor and that neither party acted primarily in self-defense.” In the
required primary aggressor analysis, “the court shall consider the provisions concerning
dominant aggressors set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 836 of the
Penal Code.” (§ 6305, subd. (b).) Penal Code section 836, subdivision (c)(3) provides
guidelines for arrests in situations where mutual protective orders have been issued. It
instructs law enforcement to make a reasonable effort to identify the dominant aggressor
involved in the incident by considering “(A) the intent of the law to protect victims of
domestic violence from continuing abuse, (B) the threats creating fear of physical injury,
(C) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and (D) whether
either person involved acted in self-defense.”
“A granting or denial of injunctive relief is generally reviewed by the appellate
court based upon the abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.] This standard applies to
the grant or denial of a protective order under the DVPA. [Citations.] In reviewing the
evidence, the reviewing court must apply the ‘substantial evidence standard of review,’
meaning ‘ “whether, on the entire record, there is any substantial evidence, contradicted
or uncontradicted,” supporting the trial court’s finding. [Citation.] “We must accept as
true all evidence ... tending to establish the correctness of the trial court’s findings ...,
resolving every conflict in favor of the judgment.” ’ ” (Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014)
223 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143 (Burquet).)
The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
In challenging the trial court’s order against him, Arman contends that substantial
evidence does not support the trial court’s determination that the May 28, 2025 incident
qualified as an act of abuse and, more generally, that none of the acts identified in the
record rise above general marital conflict and therefore cannot constitute abuse. We do
not agree.
Arman’s brief focuses on aspects of his conduct related to what the trial court
found were provocative, glib, and callous comments related to replacing Burton with
11.
other wives. Arman argues that these comments were insufficient to demonstrate or
qualify as abuse because they were merely unpleasant interactions, arguments, and
offensive communications. Arman’s arguments are too narrowly focused to prevail.
Under even a generous reading of the facts found by the trial court, the May 28,
2025 incident involved Arman entering a bathroom to confront Burton, using emotional
threats to the stability of their marriage, recording the interaction, striking Burton in the
head, and using physical force to restrain her. All of this occurred in the context of a
relationship where Arman regularly used threats to the couple’s marriage to upset Burton
and previously used physical violence against Burton both in public and in private.
“[T]hreats that do not directly refer to physical violence or cause reasonable fear
of bodily harm may still constitute harassment or disturbing the peace of the recipient ….
The DVPA clearly protects against more than just physical violence and threats thereof.”
(Vinson v. Kinsey (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1166, 1176.) Under the required totality of the
circumstances analysis required of the DVPA (§§ 6301, 6320), Arman’s pattern of using
polygamy to threaten, control, and emotionally harm Burton could readily be considered
by the court to demonstrate that the threat made in this instance was not just an
unpleasant interaction or offensive communication. Similarly, we reject Arman’s
reliance on Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1. In that case, a single private social
media post was insufficient to demonstrate harm to the victim’s mental or emotional calm
precisely because it was a single incident that was not directed to the victim and did not
contain sufficient detail to disclose confidential information. (Id. at pp. 12–13.) In
contrast, here, the record clearly supports the trial court finding a pattern of behavior
directed toward Burton that preyed upon her marital concerns and created substantial
emotional reactions that were then used to allege Burton was emotionally unstable. Such
conduct can readily be deemed abuse under the statutory scheme.
Moreover, Arman’s focus on just the emotional aspects of the May 28, 2025
incident ignores the credible evidence of physical abuse accepted by the trial court both
12.
on that day and on prior occasions. Arman’s argument does not account for the trial
court finding credible Burton’s testimony that she was previously struck in a car for not
buckling up the parties’ child and struck in her home for not covering herself in public.
And it does not account for the court’s finding that Arman did, in fact, strike Burton in
the head during the May 28, 2025 incident, a strike the court found was not part of any
properly alleged self-defense assertion. The trial court’s credibility findings regarding
both the past and present allegations of domestic violence are entitled to substantial
deference and, accepting Burton’s credible testimony as true, are substantial evidence of
abuse sufficient to affirm the court’s order. (See Burquet, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1143 [we must accept as true all evidence supporting the trial court’s order].)
Finally, while Arman alleges the trial court turned credibility findings made
against him into actual factual findings without proper support, the record does not
support this claim. As noted above, the trial court not only found Arman’s testimony not
credible, but it also found Burton’s testimony credible. The court thus could accept as
true Burton’s testimony, regardless of whether Arman challenged Burton’s testimony.
Ultimately, Arman’s arguments are nothing more than a request that this court reweigh
the evidence relied on by the trial court and determine it was too weak to support a
domestic violence restraining order. This we cannot do. (M.S. v. A.S. (2022)
76 Cal.App.5th 1139, 1145.) Regardless of any alleged conflicts in the record between
the trial court’s findings and the evidence presented, the fact remains that substantial
evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion, and no abuse of discretion occurred. (See
Burquet, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1143 [we must resolve all conflicts in favor of the
trial court’s ruling].)
13.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
HILL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
LEVY, J.
GUERRA, J.
14.