2020 IL App (4th) 190830-U 

NO. 4-19-0830 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

CALVIN WHITE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CLYDE E. RICHARDSON, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

 Appeal from the 

 Circuit Court of 

 Sangamon County 

 No. 19OP1353 

 Honorable 

 Jack D. Davis II, 

 Judge Presiding.

 JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Holder White concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding plaintiff failed to produce a sufficient 

record to support his claim the circuit court failed to consider certain evidence 

when it dismissed plaintiff’s petition for a stalking no contact order. 

¶ 2 Plaintiff, Calvin White, appeals from the circuit’s court’s judgment dismissing his 

petition for a stalking no contact order against defendant, Clyde E. Richardson. We affirm the 

circuit court’s judgment. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On July 18, 2019, plaintiff pro se filed a petition for a stalking no contact order 

against defendant under section 80 of the Stalking No Contact Order Act (740 ILCS 21/80 (West 

2018)), alleging defendant interfered with his property when he (1) leaned a trash can against 

plaintiff’s house and (2) sprayed plaintiff’s house with a garden hose. On the same date, the 

circuit court entered an emergency ex parte stalking no contact order. On August 22, 2019, the 

FILED

September 10, 2020 

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme 

Court Rule 23 and may not be cited 

as precedent by any party except in 

the limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 
- 2 - 

court held a hearing on plaintiff’s petition. Following the hearing, the court entered a written 

order dismissing plaintiff’s petition and vacating the emergency stalking no contact order, 

stating, “[Petitioner] failed to bear burden of proof. Insufficient evidence to support entry of 

stalking no contact order.” Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, asserting he met his burden of 

proof and the court “failed to grant the order to protect [him] and [his] family.” Following an 

October 2019 hearing, the court denied plaintiff’s motion. The record on appeal contains no 

reports of proceedings or bystander’s reports from the August or October 2019 hearings in this 

case. 

¶ 5 This appeal followed. 

¶ 6 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 7 On appeal, plaintiff argues the circuit court erred when it dismissed his petition 

for a stalking no contact order by “not considering the unfortunate distress caused by the 

unwanted contact with defendant.” In his pro se brief, plaintiff asserts he presented sufficient 

evidence to support a stalking no contact order, stating he “has suffered from anxiety from the 

alarming thumps and bangs made on the side of [his] home while inside trying to rest,” “[t]hese 

sounds ha[ve] brought on a very uneasy and stressful feeling due to the unwanted contact made 

by *** defendant,” and plaintiff provided visual footage of defendant’s unwanted contact. 

Defendant responds, arguing (1) plaintiff has failed to provide a sufficient record to support his 

claim on appeal and (2) the court’s decision to vacate the stalking no contact order was not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 8 The Illinois Supreme Court “has long held that in order to support a claim of error 

on appeal the appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record.” Webster v. 

Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426, 432, 749 N.E.2d 958, 962 (2001). If the issue on appeal “relates to the 
- 3 - 

conduct of a hearing or proceeding, this issue is not subject to review absent a report or record of 

the proceeding.” Id. In the absence of such a record, the reviewing court will presume the trial 

court’s order conformed to the law and had a sufficient factual basis. Id. at 962. “Any doubts 

which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant.” 

Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392, 459 N.E.2d 958, 959 (1984). 

¶ 9 We are unable to find the circuit court erred by not considering evidence of 

plaintiff’s distress caused by defendant’s alleged unwanted contact because plaintiff has failed to 

produce a sufficiently complete record to support his claim. The record contains no reports of 

proceedings or bystander’s reports of either the stalking no contact order hearing or the hearing 

on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. The only records memorializing the proceedings are (1) the 

written order dismissing plaintiff’s petition and vacating the emergency order because plaintiff 

failed to present sufficient evidence to support a stalking no contact order, (2) the written order 

denying plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and (3) the court’s docket entry sheet stating the same. 

Given the scant record before us, we presume the court acted in conformance with the law when 

it denied plaintiff’s petition and motion to reconsider. See id. We affirm.

¶ 10 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 11 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

¶ 12 Affirmed.