Nunez v. Flores

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANGEL NUNEZ, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

LEILA GALAVIZ FLORES, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0602 FC
FILED 03-25-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FN2025-091964
The Honorable Lisa C. Boddington, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Angel Nunez, Mesa
Petitioner/Appellee

Leila Galaviz Flores, Mesa
Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.
 NUNEZ v. FLORES
Decision of the Court

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Leila Galaviz Flores appeals the superior court’s order
continuing an order of protection in favor of Angel Nunez. For the
following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Nunez petitioned for an order of protection against Flores,
alleging that she had physically assaulted him in their home. The superior
court found reasonable cause to believe that Flores “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 Flores have no
contact with Nunez or his child and prohibiting her from going to or near
Nunez’s residence and workplace or the child’s school.

¶3 Flores requested a hearing, after which the court found
reasonable cause to leave the order of protection in effect.

¶4 Flores timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. Ariz. Const.
art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b).

DISCUSSION

¶5 Flores argues the superior court erred by continuing the order
of protection because Nunez’s accusations were false and made solely for
the purpose of removing her from their joint residence.1 Nunez filed no
answering brief. We review the court’s decision to continue an order of
protection after a hearing for an abuse of discretion. Flynn v. Flynn, 257
Ariz. 1, 3 ¶ 7 (App. 2024).

¶6 Although we sometimes treat the 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), we do not do so here, because
Flores raises no debatable issues. See Carter v. State ex rel. Eyman, 5 Ariz.
App. 415, 415 (1967) (“[T]he failure to file an answering brief does not
constitute a confession of reversible error since no debatable issue is
presented.”).

1 We do not consider the documents attached to Flores’s opening brief that

are not part of the superior court record. GM Dev. Corp. v. Cmty. Am. Mortg.
Corp., 165 Ariz. 1, 4-5 (App. 1990).

2
 NUNEZ v. FLORES
Decision of the Court

¶7 A court must issue an order of protection if it determines there
is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an act of
domestic violence within the past year. A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(2). The court
may continue the protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves their
case by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. § 13-3602(L); Ariz. R. Prot.
Order P. 38(g)(3). Because Flores did not provide us with a transcript of the
protective order hearing, we must presume that the record supports the
superior court’s findings. Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). More
specifically, we must presume Nunez presented credible evidence at the
hearing that Flores had committed an act of domestic violence within the
past year. Accordingly, we cannot say the court abused its discretion by
continuing the order of protection.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3