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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ISABEL DELACRUZ, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

RICHARD NERIZ, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 18-0094 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC 2018-000325

The Honorable Virginia L. Richter, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCE

Richard Neriz, Avondale

Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

FILED 12-13-2018
DELACRUZ V. NERIZ

Decision of the Court

2

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Richard Neriz timely appeals an order of protection in favor 

of Isabel Delacruz and her children. Neriz argues that (1) the superior court 

erred by not allowing the introduction of specific items of evidence and (2) 

the superior court’s findings of fact were based on false evidence. Because 

Neriz has waived his arguments on appeal, and because we discern no 

abuse of discretion by the superior court, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

¶2 Neriz is married to Delacruz, and they have several minor 

children. In January 2018, Delacruz filed a petition for a protective order 

alleging physical and verbal abuse by Neriz toward Delacruz and the 

children. The court found reasonable cause and issued the ex parte order.

¶3 The superior court held an evidentiary hearing to consider

physical evidence and testimony from both Neriz and Delacruz. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Neriz either committed an 

act of domestic violence within the last year or could commit an act of 

domestic violence in the future. The court thus continued the order of 

protection pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3602. 

DISCUSSION1

¶4 Neriz argues that (1) the court erred by not allowing him to 

present all of the evidence he wished to present, and (2) the trial court based 

its findings of fact on false evidence. Neriz argues these alleged errors 

prejudiced his case because the evidence he wished to present would have 

demonstrated both that he presented “no harm to anyone” and that 

Delacruz “violat[ed] her restraining order.” We review for an abuse of 

discretion the superior court’s continuance of an order of protection 

following an evidentiary hearing, Shah v. Vakharwala, 244 Ariz. 201, 202, ¶ 5 

(App. 2018), and its rulings on the admission of evidence, Gemstar Ltd. v. 

Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 506 (1996). We will not reverse unless the 

record, “viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s 

decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” 

Michaelson v. Garr, 234 Ariz. 542, 544, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (citation omitted). 

 

1 Although Delacruz did not file an answering brief, in our discretion, we 

decline to consider her failure to do so as a confession of error. See Cardoso 

v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 616, ¶ 4 n.1 (App. 2012).
DELACRUZ V. NERIZ

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 The record on appeal includes the documentary evidence 

submitted at the evidentiary hearing but does not include a copy of the 

transcript of the hearing. Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate 

Procedure (“ARCAP”) 11(c), the duty to order and include the transcript in 

the record was Neriz’s. When no transcript is provided on appeal, we 

assume the record supports the superior court’s decision. Kline v. Kline, 221 

Ariz. 564, 572, ¶ 33 (App. 2009). Furthermore, pursuant to ARCAP 

13(a)(7)(A), an appellant must present significant arguments “concerning 

each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each 

contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate 

references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies.” 

Failure to do so usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.

Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009). Neriz has failed to 

identify any facts or provide any supporting authority demonstrating that

the superior court abused its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings, 

and we discern none. Accordingly, he has not established a basis for relief. 

CONCLUSION

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

continuance of the protective order.