Starr-Walker v. Starr CA2/3

Opinion

Filed 8/26/26 Starr-Walker v. Starr CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ELESE STARR-WALKER, B347459

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24CMRO01575)

v.

RAQUALE STARR,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Adrian Gidaya Roxas, Judge. Affirmed.

Elese Starr-Walker, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Petitioner and appellant Elese Starr-Walker appeals from a trial court order denying her request for a restraining order. Starr-Walker has not provided a record adequate for appellate review. She also has not demonstrated that the trial court erred. We therefore must affirm the trial court order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the case summary included in the record on appeal, in September 2024, Starr-Walker filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order, seeking to restrain Raquale Starr. The case was at some point related to two other restraining order requests: Elese Starr-Walker v. Darlene Starr- Young-Johnson, and Elese Starr v. Eric Howard Starr. The record includes no information about the two related matters, beyond the case numbers and the parties’ names.1 Starr- Walker’s appellate briefing indicates that Raquale Starr is her sister-in-law, Eric Starr is her brother, and Darlene Starr-Young- Johnson is her sister.

On January 14, 2025, the trial court conducted a hearing in the Compton courthouse. Starr-Walker had subpoenaed security camera footage from the Long Beach courthouse, and the court in Compton had received a CD, presumably of the subpoenaed footage. The court had not reviewed the video. The court advised Starr-Walker that the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court had issued a general order regarding courthouse security footage and Starr-Walker would have to comply with

1 This appeal concerns only Starr-Walker’s request for a restraining order against Raquale Starr. Although Starr- Walker’s appellate brief refers to all three matters, the notice of appeal was limited to the matter involving Raquale Starr; the other case numbers were crossed out.

3

that order to obtain and use the video footage she was seeking. The court briefly explained the general order, including that “any party can request a copy of the surveillance cameras of the Long Beach courthouse, which is where this incident purportedly arose from.” The court gave the parties copies of the January 2, 2025 general order and permitted them to review it in court so that they might ask questions about what was required. The court then continued the matter to allow Starr-Walker time to comply with the order and obtain the video footage she was seeking.

Before concluding the hearing, the court again advised that the general order outlined the requirements for obtaining courthouse security footage. The court stated that it would not accept hearsay at the eventual hearing and informed the parties: “If either one of you has questions about what the discovery rules are, what hearsay is, what type of witnesses are required to testify, you can go to the self-help center of this courthouse or any courthouse in the county. They have staff attorneys or volunteer attorneys there who may be able to assist you.”

The court set a “discovery setting” hearing date of February 11, 2025. The record does not contain minute orders or a reporter’s transcript from that hearing.

On April 9, 2025, Starr-Walker filed an ex parte application seeking an order allowing the “Compton Courthouse to review surveillance footage recorded on or about September 11, 2024, at the Long Beach Courthouse.” In an accompanying declaration, Starr-Walker indicated that a hearing had been set for April 16, 2025, and security video from the Long Beach courthouse was essential to support her position. A subpoena for the video was “issued and granted” in late December 2024. Starr-Walker

4

sought an order allowing the submission and consideration of the evidence.

A copy of the subpoena was attached to the application. In a supporting declaration, Starr-Walker asserted that “another female” assaulted her on September 11, 2024, in the Long Beach courthouse, and “Darlene” and “her witnesses” lied about Starr- Walker being the aggressor. She claimed the video would “prove all three [restraining order] cases” and would establish that Starr-Walker did not touch Darlene.2 The record does not include the trial court’s ruling on the ex parte application. The next document in the clerk’s transcript is a minute order from the April 16, 2025 hearing. According to the minute order, the court noted that the “presiding judge” in Long Beach denied Starr-Walker’s ex parte application. The court therefore did not view the video footage “as it was not appropriately submitted.” The court deemed the January 2, 2025 general order regarding court security videos part of the minute order and part of the record. After hearing testimony, reviewing all other evidence, and allowing argument, the court concluded Starr-Walker did not meet her burden of proof and denied the restraining order request. There is no reporter’s transcript or other recording or summary of the hearing.

2 Starr-Walker further explained: “I only hit the person who assaulted me and I defended myself one time and then my brother chased me out the court house, they were upset that they lost the case and it was dismissed for elder abuse. [T]hey want to keep getting that IHSS check so this is what she results to filing a BOGUS Elder Abuse Case how dare you.” Although the declaration did not identify the person who assaulted her, Starr- Walker asserts that it was Raquale Starr in her opening brief on appeal.

5

Starr-Walker timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

As we understand her brief on appeal, Starr-Walker argues that the trial court erred by refusing to consider the security camera footage. She asserts that, had the court reviewed the video, the evidence would have supported her version of events and demonstrated that other parties and witnesses lied at the restraining order hearing.3 However, neither the brief nor the minimal record permits us to evaluate Starr-Walker’s claim that the trial court erred. On appeal, this court presumes that a trial court order is correct. It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate that the trial court committed an error that requires us to reverse the challenged order. This is true for all appellants, including those who represent themselves. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 (Nwosu).) To satisfy that burden, the appellant must give this court an adequate record. If the appellant does not provide an adequate record, we must affirm the trial court order. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609; In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos & Munoz (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1126–1127.)

The record here is not adequate. We do not have the restraining order request, any opposition, or any documents or exhibits that were admitted at the restraining order hearing. We do not have the ruling on Starr-Walker’s ex parte application. We do not have a reporter’s transcript or settled statement

3 Although we discern these arguments, most of Starr- Walker’s brief is a recitation of her version of the events of September 11, 2024, and her allegations regarding her sister’s improper motivations for seeking a restraining order against her.

6

regarding the April 16, 2025 hearing. (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039 [without reporter’s transcript or suitable substitute, court would presume the judgment is correct].) As a result, while the minute order indicates the trial court did not consider the security video because it was not “appropriately submitted,” we do not know what arguments were made to the court at the hearing, or any other explanation of the court’s reasoning. (In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos & Munoz (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1128 [“ ‘ “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant.” ’ ”].)

In addition, an appellant must support any arguments made on appeal with reasoned legal argument and citations to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a); Dilbert v. Newsom (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 317, 323; Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.) Starr-Walker’s brief does not include any citations to the record. She also does not explain why it was incorrect for the trial court to exclude the security video. She does not argue or demonstrate that she complied with the court’s general order regarding courthouse security videos, or that she should not have been required to follow the general order’s procedures. She does not contend the court in Long Beach erred in rejecting her ex parte application. Starr-Walker argues that had the video been admitted, the court would have ruled in her favor, but she does not explain why it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to exclude the video.

Finally, even if an appellant shows that the trial court erred by excluding evidence, this court will not reverse unless the error is prejudicial. In other words, the appellant must show that a different result would have been probable if the error had not

7

occurred. (Evid. Code, § 354; Code Civ. Proc., § 745; Zuniga v. Alexandria Care Center LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 871, 888– 889.) Here, Starr-Walker makes this claim, but the inadequate record prevents us from evaluating it. Without a transcript or other summary of the evidence that was admitted at the hearing, we cannot determine whether a different result would have been probable if the security video had been admitted. Starr-Walker’s mere assertion that this is true is insufficient.

Starr-Walker has not demonstrated that the trial court erred. We therefore must affirm the court’s order.

8

DISPOSITION

The trial court order is affirmed. No costs are awarded as respondent did not make an appearance in this appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ADAMS, P. J.

We concur:

HANASONO, J.

DELGADO, J.*

* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.