NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

In re the Matter of:

JENELL STRAW, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

JOHN ROBERT WITTS, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 13-0173

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2006-090100

The Honorable Rodrick J. Coffey, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Wylde Summers PLLC, Gilbert

By Jennifer Summers

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Atchley and Delgado LLP, Mesa

By Michael G. Delgado

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
STRAW v. WITTS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Jenell Straw appeals from the superior court’s order 

dismissing an order of protection she obtained against her ex-husband, 

John Robert Witts, on behalf of their minor daughter. On appeal, Straw 

argues the superior court abused its discretion in dismissing the order of 

protection because the evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing 

demonstrated Witts had committed an act of domestic violence against the 

daughter. See Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 619, ¶ 16, 277 P.3d 811, 816

(App. 2012) (order of protection ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

For the following reasons, we disagree with her argument and affirm the 

order. 

¶2 Witts’s current wife, who observed parts of the incident 

between Witts and the daughter, testified that after Witts took the 

daughter’s cell phone away, the daughter “tried to lunge in and grab the 

phone from him.” She testified Witts then tried to usher the daughter into 

her room, and “she just went nuts” and started hitting, kicking, and 

scratching him. Witts’s wife further testified Witts restrained the 

daughter by “lower[ing] her to the ground,” but that he did not hurt her 

in any way. Witts’s wife called the police, and they asked Witts if he 

wished to press charges against the daughter; he declined to do so. 

 

¶3 Straw also testified at the hearing based on her 

conversations with the daughter. Straw’s testimony supported Witts’s 

wife’s testimony that the daughter initiated physical contact with Witts 

and he was trying to restrain her. Straw stated the daughter told her that 

Witts had the daughter’s cell phone in his hand, and “she went over the 

top of him to go grab it.” The daughter also told Straw that Witts had

then grabbed the daughter’s arm and sat her back down. When he would 

not let go of her arm, the daughter “took a swing at him.”1 

 1At the hearing, Straw testified that Witts grabbed the 

daughter by the throat. Witts’s wife, however, testified Witts never 
STRAW v. WITTS

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Based on this testimony and the other evidence presented at 

the hearing, reasonable evidence supported the superior court’s dismissal 

of the order of protection. See State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 341, ¶ 77, 160 

P.3d 203, 220 (2007) (Under an abuse of discretion standard, “we uphold a 

decision if there is any reasonable evidence in the record to sustain it.” 

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

¶5 Witts has requested fees on appeal pursuant to Arizona 

Revised Statutes section 25-324 (Supp. 2013). Section 25-324 authorizes 

attorneys’ fees in dissolution of marriage and legal decision-making and 

parenting time actions and is, consequently, inapplicable here. As the 

prevailing party on appeal, however, Witts is entitled to costs on appeal 

contingent upon his compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate 

Procedure 21. 

¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

order dismissing the order of protection. 

 

grabbed the daughter’s throat and his hands were on her shoulders. 

Which witness to believe was a decision for the superior court. State v. 

Cid, 181 Ariz. 496, 500, 892 P.2d 216, 220 (App. 1995) (“finder-of-fact, not 

the appellate court . . . determines the credibility of witnesses”).