From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bolas v. Amorin

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 17, 2014
No. 1 CA-CV 13-0597 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2014)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CV 13-0597

06-17-2014

In re the Matter of: SHARON BOLAS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JOSEPH DALE AMORIN, Defendant/Appellant.

Sharon Bolas, Anthem Plaintiff/Appellee Joseph Dale Amorin, Peoria Defendant/Appellant


NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.


Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN2013-052438

The Honorable Julie P. Newell, Commissioner


AFFIRMED


COUNSEL

Sharon Bolas, Anthem
Plaintiff/Appellee
Joseph Dale Amorin, Peoria
Defendant/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. NORRIS, Judge:

¶1 This appeal arises out of an order of protection barring Appellant Joseph Amorin from having any contact with Appellee Sharon Bolas and her two children. Amorin first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, arguing he was not a threat to Bolas or her children. We review decisions regarding orders of protection for an abuse of discretion. Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 619, ¶ 16, 277 P.3d 811, 816 (App. 2012). For the following reasons, Amorin has not shown the superior court abused its discretion in entering the order of protection.

Bolas did not file an answering brief. While we could regard her failure to do so as a confession of error, in the exercise of our discretion, we decline to do so. See Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, 526 n.1, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 722, 724 n.1 (App. 2008).

¶2 When an appellant argues on appeal that a finding or decision of the superior court after an evidentiary hearing is unsupported by the evidence, the appellant must provide the court with a transcript of the hearing. ARCAP 11(b); see also Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 572, ¶ 33, 212 P.3d 902, 910 (App. 2009). Amorin has not provided this court with a transcript of the hearing on the order of protection, and thus, we must assume the record supports the superior court's findings and order. Kline, 221 Ariz. at 572, ¶ 33, 212 P.3d at 910. Accordingly, we reject Amorin's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

¶3 Amorin also suggests he was precluded from introducing evidence at the hearing that would show he was not a threat to Bolas or her children. The record, however, does not show the superior court rejected any evidence Amorin submitted at the hearing.

¶4 Furthermore, the record shows the superior court found reasonable cause to believe Amorin had committed an act of domestic violence within the past year, which alone would justify issuance of an order of protection. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3602(E)(2) (Supp. 2013). Accordingly, based on the record before us, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order of protection.

¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of protection.


Summaries of

Bolas v. Amorin

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 17, 2014
No. 1 CA-CV 13-0597 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2014)
Case details for

Bolas v. Amorin

Case Details

Full title:In re the Matter of: SHARON BOLAS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JOSEPH DALE…

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jun 17, 2014

Citations

No. 1 CA-CV 13-0597 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2014)