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 a divorce proceeding between Barrie Lee Derringer (Petitioner-Appellee) and David Brian Derringer (Respondent-Appellant), with the latter also referencing a related criminal proceeding. The Respondent, appearing pro se, challenges the district court's divorce order and order on reserved issues, including a claim that his Second Amendment rights were violated.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alisa A. Hadfield, District Judge: Issued a minute order and bifurcated decree of divorce (divorce order) and an order on reserved issues and numerous motions filed by Respondent.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Challenges every aspect of the district court’s divorce order and order on reserved issues, reiterates arguments previously made, cites numerous cases and secondary authorities in support of his position, and requests review of decisions in both the divorce and a related criminal proceeding. Additionally, he argues that the district court violated his Second Amendment rights and seeks restitution of millions of dollars for the deprivation of his Constitutional rights.
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's divorce order and order on reserved issues were correctly decided.
• Whether the district court violated the Respondent's Second Amendment rights.
• Whether the Court of Appeals can review decisions made in a related criminal proceeding not subject to the current appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s divorce order and order on reserved issues.

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals issued a notice proposing to summarily affirm the district court's decisions, which was met with a memorandum in opposition from the Respondent. The Respondent's arguments, including the claim of Second Amendment rights violation and the request for restitution, were considered unpersuasive, primarily due to the failure to demonstrate that these issues were raised at the district court level. The Court of Appeals, adhering to the principle that it cannot review allegations not presented to the district court, affirmed the district court’s decisions based on the proper standard of review and the correctness of the result.