Fredericks v. Wallace




Filed 6/21/11 Fredericks v. Wallace 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----

MARTI FREDERICKS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAKE WALLACE, Defendant and Appellant.

C066138 (Super. Ct. No. 39201000243196CUHRSTK)

Defendant Jake Wallace appeals, in propria persona, from the trial court’s order issuing an amended restraining order. We shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The limited record[1] we were provided establishes the following:
Plaintiff Marti Fredericks requested a restraining order to stop harassment by Wallace. According to her request, Wallace “was terminated from his employment at Human Services Projects, Inc., on June 11, 2010[,] and refused to leave the premises. Law enforcement removed him from the premises and he threatened re-entry. He was arrested and taken from the premises by law enforcement.” Fredericks filed her request for orders to stop harassment later that day. The persons/premises sought to be protected included teachers and school staff at the Options in Education Center, as well as Fredericks and multiple other persons and premises.
On June 17, 2010,[2] the trial court denied the request for a temporary restraining order and set the matter for hearing on July 12. That same day, Fredericks filed a notice of hearing. The proof of service for the notice of hearing was filed on July 1.
The hearing was held on July 12. On July 14, the court issued an order restraining Wallace from contact with Fredericks, as well as all the persons and premises for which she had sought protection, with the exception of teachers and school staff at the Options in Education Center.[3] The proof of service for the restraining order was filed on July 22.
On August 17, the court issued an amended restraining order identical to the previous order and with the same expiration date, but added as protected persons the teachers and school staff at the Options in Education Center, as originally requested. The proof of service for the amended restraining order was filed on August 26.
Wallace filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered on August 28, 2010.[4]
DISCUSSION
When an appeal is “on the judgment roll” (Allen v. Toten, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1082-1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court’s findings. (See ibid; Krueger v. Bank of America, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 207; Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Our review is limited to determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
Here, Wallace claims he was never personally served with notice of hearing on the restraining order or the restraining order itself. The face of the record shows service on Wallace of the notice, the restraining order, and the amended restraining order. Nothing in the record or in Wallace’s opening brief places those facts in dispute. Accordingly, we find no error on the face of this record.
Wallace also claims he was “given consent to be on the premises and invited by [his] employer” to discuss work and wage conditions, a claim we construe as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the July 12 hearing. As explained ante, the law compels us to assume the evidence presented to the trial court supported its decision to grant the original and amended restraining orders.
Finally, Wallace appears to argue that he was engaging in constitutionally protected activity rather than harassment, and attempts to submit additional evidence to this court. We have declined to consider evidence outside the record and shall reject any arguments based thereon.
We find no error on the face of this record.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Fredericks shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)



DUARTE , J.


We concur:



ROBIE , Acting P. J.



BUTZ , J.

---