Powers v. Watson
Filed 9/8/06 Powers v. Watson CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| JUDY A. POWERS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DON D. WATSON, Defendant and Appellant. | A113227 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. AF05224014) |
Appellant appeals from an order granting Judy Powers's request for a temporary restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA).[1] (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.)[2] Appellant has failed to include in the record a copy of the reporter's transcript. Given the state of the record in this case, we are unable to conclude that the trial court erred in issuing the restraining order. Accordingly, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 22, 2005, Powers filed a request for a restraining order against appellant under the DVPA. Powers claimed that he had sent her a letter and that he had threatened to send another letter to her employer disclosing her personal information if she refused to read it. Powers also claimed that he had engaged in stalking behavior during 2004, including making unwanted appearances at her home and workplace. She requested that her 18-year-old daughter also be protected by the order.
Appellant filed an answer to Powers's request. He admitted to sending the letter, but denied stalking Powers.
The hearing on Powers's request for a restraining order was held on December 16, 2005. Appellant was not present at the hearing because he was incarcerated.[3] His request for a continuance was denied, and the court granted the restraining order. Appellant's request for a waiver of costs for a reporter's transcript was denied on February 27, 2006. On March 20, 2006, appellant filed a notice of intent to proceed without a reporter's transcript, citing to California Rules of Court, rule 4(a)(1).[4]
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting Powers's request for a restraining order. He claims that the acts cited to in Powers's petition were non-violent and that many of these acts were remote in time as they occurred several months before the petition was filed. He also claims that the court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront and examine his accuser because he was not present at the hearing. Finally, he asserts that the court erred in granting the order with respect to Powers's 18-year-old daughter.
An appealed judgment or order is presumed to be correct, and â€
