NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. 

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

In re the Matter of: 

FRANCES MILLER, Plaintiff/Appellee, 

v.

ERNEST MILLER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 15-0410 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. FN2015-092932 

The Honorable Richard J. Hinz, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED 

APPEARANCES 

Ernest Miller, Mesa 

Defendant/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. 
MILLER v. MILLER 

Decision of the Court 

2

J O H N S E N, Judge: 

¶1 Appellant Ernest Miller argues the superior court erred in 

granting and affirming an order of protection in favor of his wife, Frances 

Miller. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

¶2 In May 2015, Frances petitioned for an order of protection 

against Ernest, alleging he had committed acts of domestic violence against 

her. The court found reasonable cause to believe Ernest "may commit an 

act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence 

within the past year," and issued an order of protection directing that he 

have no contact with Frances and prohibiting him from going to or near her 

residence. Ernest requested a hearing, which the court held the following 

week. After hearing testimony from both parties, the court found good 

cause to continue the order of protection and directed that it remain in 

effect. Ernest timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona 

Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-2101(A)(5)(b) (2016).1

¶3 Ernest argues the superior court erred by issuing and later 

affirming the order of protection because Frances' allegations of domestic 

violence were false.2 We review an order of protection for an abuse of 

discretion. Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259, ¶ 10 (App. 2014). 

¶4 A court shall issue an order of protection if it determines there 

is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may commit an act of 

domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the 

past year. A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(2) (2016). The court may continue the 

protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves his or her case by a 

preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 13-3602(I) (2016); Ariz. R. Prot. 

Order P. 38(g). Because Ernest has not provided a transcript of the 

protective order hearing, we must presume the record supports the 

superior court's findings. Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). 

Accordingly, we assume Frances presented credible evidence at the hearing 

 

1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's 

current version. 

2 Although we may regard Frances' failure to file an answering brief 

as a confession of reversible error, McDowell Mtn. Ranch Cmty. Ass’n v. 

Simons, 216 Ariz. 266, 269, ¶ 13 (App. 2007), in the exercise of our discretion, 

we choose to address the merits of the appeal. 
MILLER v. MILLER 

Decision of the Court 

3

that Ernest might commit an act of domestic violence or had committed an 

act of domestic violence within the past year. Without a transcript of the 

proceeding, we cannot say the court abused its discretion by granting and 

continuing the order of protection. We therefore affirm.