Opinion
2 CA-CV 2022-0070
01-20-2023
Virginia Adams, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Melissa Carpio, Defendant/Appellant.
Virginia Adams, Tucson In Propria Persona Melissa Carpio, Red Rock In Propria Persona
This Decision Does Not Create Legal Precedent And May Not Be Cited Except As Authorized By Applicable Rules. Not For Publication See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. C20221387 The Hon. Nicholas A. Knauer, Judge Pro Tempore, The Honorable Helena S. Seymour, Judge Pro Tempore. AFFIRMED.
Virginia Adams, Tucson In Propria Persona
Melissa Carpio, Red Rock In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
¶1 Melissa Carpio appeals from the trial court's order affirming an injunction against harassment entered against her in April 2022. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 In April 2022, the trial court entered an injunction against harassment against Carpio, enjoining her from having any contact with Virginia Adams for one year. After a hearing at which both parties appeared, the court affirmed the injunction. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(5) and 12-120.21.
Discussion
¶3 Carpio challenges the trial court's affirmance of the April 2022 injunction on the grounds that insufficient evidence supported the injunction, that certain witness statements constituted hearsay, and that the judge displayed bias during the ruling based on her interactions with the parties. Although Carpio is not represented by counsel, we afford her "the same consideration on appeal as one who has been represented by counsel," holding her to "the same familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of . . . rules . . . as is expected of a lawyer." Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999).
¶4 Carpio's opening brief cites no portions of the record to support her factual assertions. She also cites no legal authority to support her claims of error. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A) (for each issue presented for review, opening briefs must contain "supporting reasons for each contention," including "citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies"). Although she states clear issues for review, the failure to develop any legal argument or cite any legal authority in support of her claims renders them waived. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) ("Opening briefs must present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant's position on the issue in question."); see also Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52, n.3 (App. 2017) (claims not supported by legal argument waived).
¶5 Furthermore, Carpio has not included a transcript of any hearing in the record on appeal. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(B) ("If the appellant will contend on appeal that a judgment, finding or conclusion, is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding or conclusion."). In the absence of a transcript, we presume that whatever transpired at the hearing supported the trial court's findings. Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). In fact, the minute entry for the injunction modification hearing demonstrates that the court considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties. It made factual findings based on that testimony and evidence, including in at least one instance finding the evidence did not support one of the allegations against Carpio. Given our presumption that the hearing supported the court's ruling, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the ruling, see Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150, ¶ 17 (App. 2015), we find nothing in the record to suggest the court abused its discretion in finding the necessary facts to support the injunction's affirmance.
Disposition
¶6 We therefore affirm the trial court's order affirming the injunction against harassment.