Desanto v. Cleverly

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

HANNAH MARIE DESANTO, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM CLEVERLY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0308
FILED 02-18-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2024-050074
The Honorable Brian J. Palmer, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Hannah Marie DeSanto
Plaintiff/Appellee

Wilenchik & Bartness PC, Phoenix
By Dennis I. Wilenchik
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
 DESANTO v. CLEVERLY
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined in
part and specially concurs in part.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 William Cleverly appeals the superior court’s grant and
continuance of Hannah DeSanto’s (“Hannah”) injunction against
harassment. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Cleverly was Hannah’s stepfather for a short period. He
married Hannah’s mother in January 2022, petitioned for divorce just six
months later, but had second thoughts. He texted Hannah, hoping she
might help patch things up for him and her mother, also raising concern
about her mother’s drug use. Mother agreed to a drug test and tested clean
aside from prescription Adderall.

¶3 Cleverly later texted Hannah, lamenting her mother’s drug
use and accusing her mother of “staying at some resort . . . with some guy.”
Hannah told Cleverly “I think it’s better if I stay out of it.”

¶4 Cleverly went on to text Hannah seven times over the next
three weeks and visited her home two more times, never invited, leaving
disjointed letters and packages for Hannah, including his “Manifesto of
Love” which included topless photos of Hannah’s mother. He also texted
Hannah a picture of a car outside her mother’s driveway, asking if her
mother had a new boyfriend. He texted Hannah at Thanksgiving,
purporting to inform her about the alleged criminal background of her
mother’s alleged boyfriend.

¶5 Hannah eventually emailed Cleverly to stop harassing her or
she would seek an injunction against harassment. He sent one more
missive, advising that “[i]t’s not harassment, it’s just news you don’t like”
but promising to stop. Nonetheless, Hannah petitioned for and received an
injunction against harassment. Cleverly challenged the injunction. The
superior court affirmed the injunction after an evidentiary hearing.

2
 DESANTO v. CLEVERLY
Decision of the Court

¶6 Cleverly timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-
2101(A)(5)(b), -120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Although Hannah did not file an answering brief, we decline
in our discretion to treat that as a confession of reversible error. See Nydam
v. Crawford, 181 Ariz. 101, 101 (App. 1994).

¶8 Cleverly argues the superior court erred by granting and
continuing the injunction. We review the grant of an injunction against
harassment for abuse of discretion. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482, 485, ¶ 10
(App. 2002). A court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law
while reaching a discretionary conclusion or when the evidence—viewed
in the light most favorable to upholding the ruling—does not support the
order. Mahar v. Acuna, 230 Ariz. 530, 534, ¶ 14 (App. 2012). This court will
not disturb the decision of the superior court if the injunction is supported
by substantial evidence. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pochiro, 153 Ariz. 368,
370 (App. 1987).

¶9 The superior court must issue an injunction against
harassment if it finds “reasonable evidence of harassment.” A.R.S. § 12-
1809(E). Harassment is defined as a “series of acts over any period of time
that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable
person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in
fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person and serves no
legitimate purpose.” A.R.S. § 12-1809(T)(1)(a).

I. Seriously Alarms, Annoys or Harasses.

¶10 Cleverly first argues the record has no evidence showing his
actions would seriously alarm, annoy or harass a reasonable person. We
disagree. The record has ample evidence to spark a reasonable person’s
alarm, and that person might have been annoyed and harassed by
Cleverly’s conduct.

¶11 Cleverly next insists he stopped contacting Hannah the first
time she asked him to stop, but the record has reasonable evidence to show
Hannah asked Cleverly to leave her “out of it” months earlier, before
Cleverly delivered his “Manifesto of Love” and more.

¶12 What is more, a plaintiff is not obligated to attempt self-help
remedies before filing for an injunction against harassment. See A.R.S. § 12-
1809. The superior court did not abuse its discretion.

3
 DESANTO v. CLEVERLY
Decision of the Court

II. Serves a Legitimate Purpose.

¶13 Cleverly next insists his actions were taken for the legitimate
purpose of convincing Hannah to step up and help her mother kick a drug
habit. But the court received the evidence, heard the testimony and rejected
that argument. We cannot say the court abused its discretion because the
record has ample evidence to show that Cleverly might reasonably be seen
as a jilted ex-lover who tried to use a reluctant third-party to revive a
relationship with someone who did not want the relationship revived. The
superior court did not abuse its discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm.

4
 DESANTO v. CLEVERLY
Morse, J., Specially Concurring in Part

M O R S E, Judge, specially concurring in part:

¶15 I concur with the majority in all but paragraph 7, supra. If
Cleverly had raised any debatable issues, I do not think we would have
discretion to ignore appellee’s failure to respond because this appeal does
not involve a child’s best interests. See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 4 Ariz. App. 83,
85 (1966); Matter of Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL
1282653, at *1–5, ¶¶ 5–20 (Ariz. App. Mar. 26, 2024) (Morse, J., concurring)
(mem. decision) (discussing implied confession of error based on a failure
to respond). But an “an issue is not debatable when the record ‘clearly’
resolves the question raised.” Luna v. Peinado, 1 CA-CV 23-0634 FC, 2024
WL 2207309, at *3, ¶ 17 (Ariz. App. May 16, 2024) (mem. decision) (citing
Air E., Inc. v. Wheatley, 14 Ariz. App. 290, 294 (1971); Honsey v. Honsey, 126
Ariz. 336, 337 (App. 1980)); see also In re Majidi v. Milkwick, 1 CA-CV 24-0187
FC, 2024 WL 5165446, at *2, ¶ 12 (Ariz. App. Dec. 19, 2024) (mem. decision).
And, as discussed supra ¶¶ 8–13, Cleverly has not raised any debatable
issue because the record clearly supports the court’s decision.

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

5