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 the petitioner-appellee seeking an order of protection against the respondent-appellant. The district court granted this order, which the respondent appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and other procedural aspects.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the issues should not be grouped into one overarching issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order of protection. Contended that the petitioner failed to state a claim for an order of protection, failed to provide evidence of domestic abuse or violence, and claimed the order was issued based on the petitioner's feelings rather than any legal violation. Also denied making a claim of perjury against the petitioner and misunderstood the court's reference to criminal statutes as an allegation against him (paras 3-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's decision to issue an order of protection was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether the respondent's motion to supplement the record with the district court's transcript should be granted.
• Whether the respondent's various procedural and substantive challenges to the order of protection have merit.

Disposition

• The motion to supplement the record proper is denied.
• The district court's entry of an order of protection on behalf of the petitioner is affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, Roderick T. Kennedy, and Michael D. Bustamante, provided several reasons for their decision. They denied the motion to supplement the record as the case was not assigned to a non-summary calendar, which is a prerequisite for filing a transcript according to appellate procedure rules (para 2). The Court refused the respondent's demand to address his issues separately, maintaining that the issues raised were sufficiently covered under the rubric of the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court found that the respondent's arguments, including those challenging the basis for the order of protection and alleging perjury by the petitioner, were ultimately questions of evidence sufficiency. The Court clarified that it did not charge the respondent with a crime, as he misunderstood, but used a criminal statute as a guide for interpreting terms in the applicable domestic-violence statute. The Court affirmed the district court's decision based on the evidence cited in the calendar notice, which supported the issuance of the order of protection (paras 3-7).