Court Opinion

ID: 9353704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 17:04:01.386098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:58.773316
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

       JENNY CAROLINA LINARES BRICENO, Petitioner/Appellee,

                                         v.

             TOMAS ANTONIO AZNAR, Respondent/Appellant.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0335 FC
                                 FILED 1-12-2023

          Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. FC2021-003375
     The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Judge Pro Tempore (Retired)

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Tomas Antonio Aznar, Phoenix
Respondent/Appellant

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.
                      LINARES BRICENO v. AZNAR
                          Decision of the Court

¶1           Father, Tomas Antonio Aznar, appeals the superior court’s
grant of an amended order of protection. We affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            On June 1, 2021, mother, Jenny Carolina Linares Briceno,
petitioned the superior court for an order of protection against father. In the
petition, mother alleged father would routinely show up outside her
apartment on days not listed in their temporary parenting time order, yell
from the parking lot, and disrupt their daughter’s schedule. Father
continued this behavior despite mother asking him to stop. Mother further
alleged father’s behavior was “harassment and abusive,” and it made her
feel unsafe.

¶3            On June 2, 2021, the superior court granted the initial order of
protection. The order of protection went into effect on June 17, 2021, after
mother served father. Seven months later, on February 2, 2022, father
requested an evidentiary hearing. After considering the evidence received
at the hearing, including both parties’ testimony, the superior court found
father had “committed an act of domestic violence within the last year” and
affirmed the order of protection as amended.

¶4             Father timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under
article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1,
-2101.A.1, and Rule 42(b)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order
Procedure.

                               DISCUSSION

¶5             Father contends the superior court’s finding he committed an
act of domestic violence is “unfair.” To support his contention, father
provides evidence not in the record on appeal, but he does not provide a
transcript of the February 2022 hearing.

¶6            When a party claims the superior court’s ruling is not justified
by evidence, that party has a duty to furnish a transcript. Retzke v. Larson,
166 Ariz. 446, 449 (App. 1990). Without a transcript, this court will assume
evidence supported the superior court’s finding. Id. On the record before
us, we cannot find the superior court abused its discretion. See Reeck v.
Mendoza, 232 Ariz. 299, 302, ¶ 12 (App. 2013).

                                      2
            LINARES BRICENO v. AZNAR
                Decision of the Court

                       CONCLUSION

¶7   We affirm.

                  AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                  FILED: AA

                                 3