Moreno v. Bratton
Filed 1/19/10 Moreno v. Bratton CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
RUDY MORENO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM J. BRATTON et al., Defendant and Respondent. | B214390 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS108317) |
APPEAL of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.
Judicial Watch, Inc., Sterling E. Norris; Carlin & Buchsbaum and David Klehm for Petitioner and Appellant.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney and Claudia McGee Henry, Senior Assistant City Attorney for Respondent.
__________________________________________
Rudy Moreno, by petition for writ of mandamus, sought to compel the Los Angeles Police Department to comply with state law requiring notification to the United States Department of Homeland Security of the arrest of non-citizens. Petitioner failed to present any evidence of non-compliance with the statutory mandate, and the trial court denied his petition. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed April 11, 2007, appellant Rudy Moreno sought to compel the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to comply with the provisions of Health and Safety Code sect. 11369, which requires notification to federal immigration authorities of the arrest of persons for enumerated drug offenses where there is reason to believe they are not citizens of the United States. The Petition referenced several supporting exhibits, none of which were provided to this Court.[1] The only evidence submitted by Moreno that is in the record consists of several isolated pages from the deposition of an LAPD officer. The only other evidence before the trial court and this Court was provided by the LAPD in its opposition to the petition, and was admitted over Morenos objection. After trial on December 16, 2008, the trial court denied the petition for failure to prove non-compliance with the statute on January 20, 2009. Moreno timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Moreno asserts that the factual record is undisputed, and that we should undertake a de novo review. He has failed, however, to meet his obligation to provide a record that would permit us to do so. Appealed judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Consequently, plaintiff has the burden of providing an adequate record. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant. (Id. at pp. 1295-1296.)
The limited record that is before us demonstrates that Moreno failed completely to provide evidence to the trial court, or to this court, that establishes any violation of any law. In filing a petition for writ of mandate, the petitioner undertakes to satisfy the burden of proof that there is a violation requiring relief. See, e.g., Morgan v. Board of Pension Commissioners (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 836, 842. At the hearing below, Morenos counsel both objected to, and attempted to rely on, the declarations submitted by LAPD in opposition to the petition. There were two problems with this method of attempting to satisfy the burden of proof.
The first, as noted by the trial court, was that it was an attempt . . . to change the burden of proof. Its not the burden of proof of the respondent in this proceeding to prove that the information gets to the federal government. Its your burden as the petitioner here to show that it doesnt, and I cant find any such evidence.
Equally important is the fact that the declarations demonstrated that the LAPD does provide to the federal authorities, in cooperation with the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, the necessary information, and that the federal government has no objection to this method of proceeding. The petitioner thus failed to show that LAPD fails to comply with its statutory obligations. The record before this court provides no grounds for the relief requested.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Respondent is to recover its costs on appeal.
ZELON, J.
We concur:
WOODS, Acting P. J.
JACKSON, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The trial courts Statement of Decision indicated that there was an eight-volume administrative record in this matter. After requests from this Court, appellant indicated no such record exists, but failed to indicate why an incomplete record was provided to this Court.
