Opinion
2 CA-CV 2023-0213
03-21-2024
Sara Elizabeth Cisneros, Plaintiff/Appellee, and Jennifer Lee, Defendant/Appellant.
Jennifer Lee, Tucson In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. DV20230838 The Honorable Catherine Woods, Judge
AFFIRMED
Jennifer Lee, Tucson In Propria Persona
Judge O'Neil authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
O'NEIL, Judge
¶1 Jennifer Lee appeals from the trial court's order continuing an order of protection in favor of Sara Cisneros, after a contested hearing at which Lee failed to appear. We affirm.
¶2 Lee contested the order of protection after the trial court initially granted it at an ex parte hearing. The court set a contested hearing and notified the parties. Cisneros appeared for the hearing, but Lee did not. The court continued the order of protection. Days later, Lee filed a motion requesting "another chance to reschedule the hearing [she] missed." After initially setting a new hearing date, the court entered an order vacating the hearing, explaining that the hearing notice "was filed in error." Lee appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 12- 2101(A)(5)(b).
¶3 The opening brief is largely devoted to disputing the facts underlying the trial court's decision to issue the order of protection. It lacks any legal argument, cites no authority, and otherwise fails to comply with our rules. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a) (appellate brief must contain statement of facts with citation to record and argument including supporting authority). This failure to develop an argument on appeal constitutes waiver. See Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345, ¶ 11 (App. 2013); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009).
¶4 We may, at times, overlook defects in appellate briefs. See Delmastro &Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, n.2 (App. 2011). The complete absence of legal argument here, however, precludes meaningful review. Indeed, despite her general assertions that "[t]he court made many mistakes," court staff gave her "inaccurate information," and she "was accused of things [she] did not do," Lee has identified no legal error for our review. To the extent Lee intended to dispute the evidentiary basis for the order of protection, we will not reweigh evidence on appeal. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, ¶ 16 (App. 2009). Nor did Lee supply a transcript of the contested hearing for our review. See Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App.1995) ("When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions."). And although it is not clear whether Lee intended to challenge the trial court's denial of the motion to continue, courts generally have discretion to deny such motions. See State v. Raffaele, 249 Ariz. 474, ¶ 22 (App. 2020), disavowed on other grounds by State v. Brearcliffe, 254 Ariz. 579, ¶ 18 (2023).
¶5 Although Lee is representing herself, she is "held to the same standards as attorneys" concerning compliance with the rules. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13 (App. 2008). We deem any arguments Lee might have raised waived. The trial court's order continuing the order of protection is affirmed.