ingredient of the constitutional doctrine in California

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; accord, In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate 4 practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) As a self-represented litigant, Cody “is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Rawat (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861 (County of Sacramento).) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal a

2026Fechner timely filed a notice of appeal. 2 As a result, Amanda had a black eye for around a month and a half after the incident. 4 DISCUSSION At the outset, we note that it is a “fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctri

2026As the California Supreme Court has explained: “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of t

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate 4 practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) As a self-represented litigant, Cody “is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Rawat (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861 (County of Sacramento).) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal a

2022This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 (Del Real).) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and 14 citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the

2016This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 , original italics.) “It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. [Citations.]” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” (Mo

2016This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 , original italics.) “It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. [Citations.]” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” (Mo

2025A “fundamental principle of appellate procedure [is] that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citation.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appella

2025However, this would not be beneficial as we conclude, post, the record is inadequate on appeal to review her claims. 4 of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court.’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 .) “ ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; accord, In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.

2025This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; accord, In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate 2 Garten also moved to dismiss this appeal.

2025This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; accord, Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 [failure to provide an adequate record requires that issue be resolved against plaintiff].) The parties dispute whether the court’s dismissal of BAC was a clerical correction of its prior judgment pursuant to section 473, subdivision (d).

2021This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Thus, “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant]. [Citation.]” (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 ; Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 [e

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; accord, In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.

2025We may therefore decide the appeal “on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.360(c)(5)(B).) Bledsoe “ ‘still bears the “affirmative burden to show error whether or not the respondent’s brief has been filed.” ’ ” (People v. Miller (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 935 , 941.) It “is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error tha

2025First, “it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by th

2025It is a “fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record 7 presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the app

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see also Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 (Jameson).) It is the appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record on appeal, including a reporter’s transcript of the oral proceedings or a “suitable substitute.” (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039 ; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 .) An inadequate record “will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to

2024This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122 , 1140– 1141.) There is an “obligation as appellant to present a complete record for appellate review, and in the absence of a required reporter’s transcript and other documents, we presume the judgment is correct.” (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039 .) “The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s tra

2002This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citation]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; accord, Walling v. Kimball (1941) 17 Cal.2d 364, 373 [ 110 P.2d 58 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, p. 394.) “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2002This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citation]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; accord, Walling v. Kimball (1941) 17 Cal.2d 364, 373 [ 110 P.2d 58 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, p. 394.) “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2026This is a general principle of appellate practice as well as an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.” (Fundamental Investment etc. Realty Fund v. Gradow (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 966, 971 .) The order of the “‘lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’” (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718 .) Without identifying the purported deficiencies in the allegedly fraudulent documents or demonstrating a lack of service, or even stating which documents were allegedly not served, S

2025This is not 19 only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; Fundamental Investment etc. Realty Fund v. Gradow (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 966, 971 .) In short, that means Cradduck has the burden of demonstrating the trial court made a mistake – and not just any mistake, but one that would warrant reversal.

2025As the California Supreme Court has explained: “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of t

2025As the California Supreme Court has explained: “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of t

2022This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Id. at p. 564; see also People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666 ; Cal. Const., art.

2017This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " ( Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 , 564, 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 .) The appellant has the burden of demonstrating error on the part of the trial court. ( People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644 , 666, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 51 , 170 P.3d 623 .) " ' "[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented." ' " ( Foust v. San Jose Constructio

2025This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 [“where a statement of reasons is not required and the record is silent, a reviewing court will presume the trial court had a proper basis for a particular finding or order”].) 11 Kalu’s reliance on Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 298 , Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217 , and McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 18

2014This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; see People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580, 592, fn. 7 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 889 P.2d 541 ].) Moreover, “ ‘a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107 , 1114 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 79 P.3d 1030 ].) Relying on People v. Brower (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 562 [ 207 P.2d 571 ], Leonard argues the

2016This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.]” (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 , second italics added; accord, Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 17, 30 [where appellant brought up inadequate record, appellate court presumed trial court had been presented with “a sound basis” for implied finding that appellant had not incurred certain costs and affirmed trial court’s denial of same].) Further, unless otherwise shown, “it is presumed that the court

2015This is not 11 only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' [Citations.]" (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 , second italics added.) Further, unless otherwise shown, "it is presumed that the court followed the law." (Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 563 .) Here, husband failed to set forth a sufficient statement of facts stating all of the material evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, to his position.

2016This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error." ' " (In re Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 898 , quoting Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) If the 8 order is correct on any theory, this court will affirm it regardless of the family court's reasoning.

2015This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error." ' " (In re Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 898 , quoting Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) If the 8 order is correct on any theory, this court will affirm it regardless of the family court's reasoning.

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate 4 practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) As a self-represented litigant, Cody “is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Rawat (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861 (County of Sacramento).) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal a

2025This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) A self-represented litigant, such as Powers, “is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861.) “Accordingly, he must follow the rules of appellate procedure. [Citations.] Those

2025VI, § 13.) ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.” ’ (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [].) ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ (Gee v. American Realty & Construction

2022VI, § 13.) ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.” ’ (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [].) ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ (Gee v. American Realty & Construction

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’”’” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 822 .) An appellate court is “not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contentions as waived.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 ; see also Cal. 8 Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [requiring a brief to “support each point by argument and, if possible,

2026DISCUSSION As our Supreme Court has recognized, “it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of th

2025This is a general principle of appellate practice as well as an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.” (Fundamental Investment etc. Realty Fund v. Gradow (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 966, 971 .) The order of the “lower court is ‘presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’” (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718 .) “It is the appellant’s affirmative duty to show error by an adequate record.” (Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435 .) “We cannot address matters that are outside of the

2022A “fundamental principle of appellate procedure [is] that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citation.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appella

2014This is a general principle of appellate practice as well as an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citation.] The order of the lower court is ‘“presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.”’ [Citation.]” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 .) In reviewing a judgment after a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, we “must assume the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations,” and “we determine whether the complaint states f

2013This is a general principle of appellate practice as well as an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citation.] The order of the lower court is ' “presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” ’ [Citation.]” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 256 ].) “ ‘It is the duty of a party to support the arguments in its briefs by appropriate reference to the record, which includes providing exact page citations.’ [Citations.] If a party fails to support

2026VI, § 13.) “[T]he appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice.” (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 .) Self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as those represented by trained legal counsel.

2025(City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Com. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1292 .) Accordingly, “we are free to follow our usual appellate course and imply . . . findings to support the ruling.” (City and County of San Francisco v. Sainez (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1313 .) 23 committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Ibid.; see Campbell v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 156 , 161 [affirming trial court ruling where appellant failed to carry burden of demonstrating error].) “ ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice

2025(Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631 .) It is the appellant’s burden to overcome the presumption of correctness by demonstrating reversible error through an adequate record.

2025(Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631 .) It is the appellant’s burden to overcome the presumption of correctness by demonstrating reversible error through an adequate record.

2024This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122 , 1140– 1141.) There is an “obligation as appellant to present a complete record for appellate review, and in the absence of a required reporter’s transcript and other documents, we presume the judgment is correct.” (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039 .) “The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s tra

2016(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122 , 1140–1141; People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666 [“ ‘ “error must be affirmatively shown” ’ ”].) “[T]he party asserting 4 trial court error may not . . . rest on the bare assertion of error but must present argument and legal authority on each point raised.” (Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 649 .) The briefs filed by Max are accurately characterized by Kaiser as “largely incoherent.”5 To the extent discernable, the principal focus of Max’s argument seems to be a claimed denial of due process and equal protection in the t