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 of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see also Cal. Const., art.

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

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

2026Proc., § 581d.) 3 We agree that Elasali has failed to provide an adequate record for appeal. “[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.] . . . ‘ “[I]f the record is inadequat

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.

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

2016This 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 well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record." (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." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (

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

2026These principles require that Kumar, as the appellant, persuade this court it is necessary that we vacate the court’s order and remand this matter for rehearing. “ ‘[A]n order is presumed correct; all intendments are indulged in to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1046 .) “ ‘This 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 .) “We must ‘view the record in

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).

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

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.

2026These principles require that Kumar, as the appellant, persuade this court it is necessary that we vacate the court’s order and remand this matter for rehearing. “ ‘[A]n order is presumed correct; all intendments are indulged in to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1046 .) “ ‘This 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 .) “We must ‘view the record in

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 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 reversable error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error, and to do so, he or she “must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citation to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.

2026These principles require that Kumar, as the appellant, persuade this court it is necessary that we vacate the court’s order and remand this matter for rehearing. “ ‘[A]n order is presumed correct; all intendments are indulged in to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1046 .) “ ‘This 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 .) “We must ‘view the record in

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

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 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

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

2026VI, § 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 5 With respect to the scrotal swab, the criminalist who testified for the prosecution explained, “Assuming three contributors, the evidence profile is 180 sextillion times more likely to be observed if [def

2026VI, § 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

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 11 the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) Appellate briefs must “provide a citation to the record for a factual assertion.” (County of Sacramento v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “ ‘[W]e may disregard factual contentions that are not supported by citation

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

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,

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

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.

2026These principles require that Kumar, as the appellant, persuade this court it is necessary that we vacate the court’s order and remand this matter for rehearing. “ ‘[A]n order is presumed correct; all intendments are indulged in to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1046 .) “ ‘This 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 .) “We must ‘view the record in

2026These principles require that Kumar, as the appellant, persuade this court it is necessary that we vacate the court’s order and remand this matter for rehearing. “ ‘[A]n order is presumed correct; all intendments are indulged in to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1046 .) “ ‘This 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 .) “We must ‘view the record in

2026These principles require that Kumar, as the appellant, persuade this court it is necessary that we vacate the court’s order and remand this matter for rehearing. “ ‘[A]n order is presumed correct; all intendments are indulged in to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1046 .) “ ‘This 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 .) “We must ‘view the record in

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.

2026First, “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.’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608-609.) “[W]e may affirm on any ground supported by the record [citation], including grounds

2023This 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 .) Among other consequences arising from these principles, we disregard all factual statements in Riley’s appellate brief that are not supported by a citation to the appellate record (Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor 2 America (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 385 , 162, fn. 14; United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 156 ); arguments that are not captioned under an appropriate legal argument heading