AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an appeal by Jonathan Muniz (Father) against an order of protection that was initially entered by a domestic violence commissioner and later adopted as the order of the district court. The order of protection was related to allegations against Father concerning his behavior towards his son.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Debra Ramirez, District Judge: Order of protection entered by a domestic violence commissioner on December 9, 2016, and adopted as the order of the district court on January 24, 2017.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued that the court's reliance on allegations against him deprived him of his appeal as of right on the merits of the underlying case. He contended that only the transcript from the merits hearing could accurately reflect whether his conduct in attempting to redirect his son's behavior was reasonable.
• Petitioner-Appellee (N/A): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the court's reliance on written allegations against Father, without considering the transcript from the merits hearing, deprived Father of his appeal as of right on the merits of the underlying case.
• Whether there was competent evidence of the daughter's distress sufficient to support the order of protection.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order adopting the order of protection.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that:
  The appellate court may rely on the facts contained in the record proper, the docketing statement, and the parties’ memoranda. Absent a contradiction in the record, full review of the district court transcripts is not warranted (para 5).
  The memorandum in opposition was Father’s opportunity to establish a contradiction in the record, which he failed to do. Therefore, the appellate court presumed the correctness of the district court's order and affirmed it (para 5).
  Father's assertion that there was no competent evidence of the daughter’s distress was deemed insufficient. As the appellant, it was incumbent upon Father to describe all relevant evidence presented below to allow the Court to review whether a reasonable fact-finder could have inferred the presence of the requisite level of distress. Father’s failure to do so led the Court to presume correctness and affirm the district court’s judgment (para 6).