Marriage of Guice
Filed 12/27/12
Marriage of Guice CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
In re
the Marriage of TATE and ANTONIA GUICE.
TATE
GUICE III,
Appellant,
v.
ANTONIA
GUICE,
Respondent.
C070714
(Super. Ct. No. 11FL06849)
On
March 8, 2012, the Sacramento County Superior Court issued a status-only judgment
dissolving the marriage of Tate Guice III and Antonia Guice. Tate appeals from that judgment. However, Tate raises no claim regarding the
status-only judgment. His only claims on
appeal relate to orders issued by the Stanislaus
County Superior Court in November 2010.
Specifically, Tate argues the court erred in: (1) allowing Antonia to relocate to Texas with the
parties’ son; (2) precluding Tate from cross-examining the mediator in this
matter; (3) placing the parties’ children in separate homes; and
(4) refusing to transfer venue to
County. We affirm the judgment
because Tate’s claims are not properly before this court.
BACKGROUND
Tate
filed the first petition for dissolution
in the Sacramento County Superior Court.
Antonia subsequently filed her own petition for dissolution in the
Stanislaus County Superior Court. The
parties pursued orders in each county on their separate petitions. Tate then filed a motion in Stanislaus County to
transfer venue on Antonia’s petition to Sacramento County and set
aside a default judgment.
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] The Stanislaus County
Superior Court treated Tate’s motion as one to quash Antonia’s petition and
granted the motion, thus quashing Antonia’s petition and setting aside a
default judgment.
In
November 2010, despite Antonia’s petition being quashed, the Stanislaus County
Superior Court presided over a trial on custody and visitation.
Stanislaus County Superior Court issued orders regarding custody and
visitation, which on this record appear to be final.
In
August 2011, Tate filed another motion in the Stanislaus County Superior Court
to transfer venue on Antonia’s petition to the Sacramento County Superior
Court. That motion was granted and on March 8, 2012, the Sacramento County Superior Court issued a status-only judgment
dissolving the parties’ marriage. Notice
of entry of judgment was served on March 8, 2012, and the judgment along with notice of entry of judgment were filed
on March 9,
2012.
Tate appeals from that judgment.
DISCUSSION
Tate
raises several claims on appeal regarding the November 2010 custody order. Whether Tate’s claims have merit, this court
cannot consider them. First, Tate’s
claims are not timely. Pursuant to the
California Rules of Court, Tate had, at the outside, 180 days after the
custody order was entered to appeal from that order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104 [time to
appeal is 60 days after notice of entry of judgment, is filed or served, or 180
days after judgment, whichever is earlier].)
The order Tate contends is erroneous was issued in November 2010, 17
months before he filed his notice of appeal in this matter. Accordingly, the time to appeal that order
has passed.
Second,
the order that Tate claims is erroneous was issued by the Stanislaus County
Superior Court. Absent circumstances not
found in this record, this court does not have appellate jurisdiction over the
Stanislaus County Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate
District, does. (Cal. Const., art.
VI, § 3 [giving the state Legislature authority to divide the state into
appellate districts]; Gov. Code, § 69100, subd. (e) [Stanislaus County sits in
the Fifth Appellate District]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2)
[appeals from trial court go to the appellate district in which the trial court
sits].) Accordingly, the issues raised
by Tate are not properly raised in this court on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE ,
Acting P. J.
We
concur:
HULL , J.
MAURO ,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] The request to enter
a default judgment is in the record; the judgment itself is not.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] We cannot discern
from the record why the Stanislaus County Superior Court presided over a
custody trial after quashing the petition for dissolution filed in that
county. But Tate did not raise the issue
on appeal and we presume the trial court correctly performed its duty, that something
outside the record on this appeal caused the Stanislaus County Superior Court
to resume jurisdiction over the dissolution.
(Evid. Code, § 664 [it is presumed that official duty has been
regularly performed].)
