Pro per wins!

Pro per appellant:

“I know [briefs] usually quote court cases as precedent. I’m not an attorney and can’t afford one so I won’t attempt to do that.”

The Court of Appeal responds:

We recognize the significant challenges self-represented litigants face, as well as the high cost of legal services in a civil case. Nonlawyers who represent themselves are usually at a considerable disadvantage, as would be anyone attempting to perform a complex task without adequate training, education, and experience. However, “[a] doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985.) Thus, a self-represented litigant “ ‘must expect and receive the same treatment as if represented by an attorney—no different, no better, no worse.’ ” (Nuño v. California State University, Bakersfield (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 799, 811.)

The most basic rule of appellate review is that the Court of Appeal starts a case with the presumption that the trial court’s order is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) To prevail, an appellant must demonstrate prejudicial error by making arguments supported by authority (such as cases and statutes). Smith’s admitted failure to engage in this process operates to forfeit each point he raises. (See Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 787.) His candid recognition quoted above is an explanation but not an excuse.

But that's not the end of the story. The Court of Appeal goes on to say: 

But even when parties are represented by attorneys, and perhaps especially when they are not, we have discretion to identify, request supplemental briefing on, and correct legal error where the relevant facts are undisputed and could not be altered by the presentation of additional evidence in the trial court.

Outcome: Appellant wins and is entitled to costs! Decision from 4/1 here.

(Compare here, where a pro per loses in 1/4:  It is not our role to search the record for error, or construct arguments for a party. (Espinoza v. Hepta Run, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 44, 60.) The constitutional rule that orders and judgments can be reversed only for demonstrated prejudicial error compels us to affirm the challenged order.)