California
Appeals
California Appeals
eBook
Appeal General Principles
Table of Contents
 

Appeal General Principles: A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct appellant Must Show Error and miscarriage of justice

II.                Appellant’s Contentions And Principles of Appellate Review

Kathey appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing the contempt motion.  She argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for a continuance of the hearing and denying her oral motion for attorney’s fees to assist her in prosecuting that matter.  Kathey does not challenge the substantive basis for dismissal of the contempt motion.  Kathey also appeals from the sanctions orders, citing a variety of procedural irregularities she claims warrant reversal and arguing that the sanctions impose an unreasonable burden upon her. 

Preliminarily, we stress that, to be successful on appeal, an appellant must be able to affirmatively demonstrate error on the record before the court.  “ ‘ “A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct.  All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.  This 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.)”  (In re Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 898.)

Furthermore, error alone does not warrant reversal.  “It is a fundamental principle of appellate jurisprudence in this state that a judgment will not be reversed unless it can be shown that a trial court error in the case affected the result.”  (In re Sophia B. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1439.)  “ ‘The burden is on the appellant, not alone to show error, but to show injury from the error.’ ”  (Douglas v. Ostermeier (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 729, 740.)  “Injury is not presumed from error, but injury must appear affirmatively upon the court’s examination of the entire record.”  (In re Marriage of McLaughlin (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 327, 337.)  “Only when an error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice will it be deemed to be prejudicial so as to require reversal.”  (Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 114.)  A miscarriage of justice is not found “unless it appears reasonably probable that, absent the error, the appellant would have obtained a more favorable result.”  (Khan v. Medical Board (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1841.)  With these principles in mind, we proceed to the arguments Kathey raises on appeal. 

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Definitions-Table of Contents
Standard of Review-Table of Contents

Previous Page