Cited by

We must insist that a bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules be manifest.” ¶ 6 (2013) (cleaned up).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (ruling arguments unsupported by legal authority are waived).

We must insist that a bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules be manifest.” ¶ 6 (2013) (cleaned up).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority” are waived).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority” are waived).

See id.; –65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority” are waived).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority” are waived); Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C., ¶ 17 (App. 2012) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“[W]e consider waived those arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.”).

“We presume that a judge is impartial, and ‘the party seeking recusal must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.’” ¶ 14 (2013) ().

¶22 Generally, we presume that a judicial officer is impartial, and the party challenging the officer’s impartiality “must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 14 (2013) (); Simon v. Maricopa Med.

This court has done its “best to discern and address [the Bonners’] arguments, but [this court] consider[s] waived those arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” -65, ¶ 6 (2013) (as amended).

“We presume that a judge is impartial, and ‘the party seeking recusal must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.’” ¶ 14 (2013) ().

“Bias and prejudice are evidenced by ‘a hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will, or undue friendship or favoritism, towards one of the litigants.’” ¶ 14 (2013) (quoting State v. Myers, 117Ariz.

-21 (App. 1986) (discussing the impropriety of a judge testifying how he would have ruled had a circumstance or factor been different); -70, ¶ 34 (2013) (discussing the impropriety of probing into the mental processes engaged in by a judge).6 B. Need for Reconstruction ¶31 The State argues Rule 31.8(f) allows reconstruction of a portion of the record on appeal because the original sentencing transcript is unavailable.

To preserve an issue on appeal, an appellant is required to develop his arguments “and support them with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.” ¶ 6 (2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring an opening brief to include an “‘argument’ that must contain: .

We address his arguments as best we can discern them, but consider waived arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority, –65, ¶ 6 (2013), and those raised for the first time on appeal, see Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2004)