commits error in Arizona

2023Co., 101 Ariz. 470, 472 (1966). ¶11 We review an order granting or denying post-decree relief for an abuse of discretion, see Smith v. Smith, 253 Ariz. 43 , 45, ¶ 9 (App. 2022), which occurs if the court commits an error of law in exercising its discretion, Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 (App. 2004).

2021We review a court’s order granting or denying post-decree relief for an abuse of discretion, City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 328 (1985), which occurs if the court commits an error of law in exercising its discretion, Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 (App. 2004).

2026"An abuse of discretion results when the record is 'devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,' or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion." Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469 , 471, ¶ 4 (App. 2018) (quoting Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

2025An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision, DeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420, 423, ¶ 9 (App. 2019), or the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,” Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469 , 471, ¶ 4 (App. 2018) (quoting Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

2023“Generally, a court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision, or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision.” Id. ¶9 The superior court denied special action jurisdiction, explaining there was no legal basis for the action and that city judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity in judicial acts. ¶10 Like in his briefs on appeal, Rynn failed to state discernible claims in his petition for special action before the superior court.

2022“Generally, a court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision.” Files v. Bernal, 200 Ariz. 64, 65, ¶ 2 (App. 2001) (citations omitted). ¶9 “Dismissal of a prosecution is without prejudice to commencing another prosecution, unless the court finds that the interests of justice require that the dismissal to be with prejudice.” Ariz. R.

2026“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion[,]” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., 214 Ariz. 82 , 85 ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision[,]’” Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612 , 615 ¶ 7 (App. 2015) (quoting Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518 , 520 ¶ 5 (1999)). ¶7 Utilizing the Child Support Worksheet, the court found that Father earns $8,666.67 monthly and his child support payment would be $1,495 per

2024“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” Id.; Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999). ¶37 The superior court listed four reasons for finding that Mother was unreasonable in its attorneys’ fee award determination.

2025See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005) (noting that while “the trial court’s equitable apportionment of community property” will not be disturbed “absent an abuse of discretion,” an abuse of discretion may be found “when a trial court commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion” (citations omitted)).

2021See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005) (citation omitted) (an abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law).

2019“An abuse of discretion occurs when there is no evidence to support a holding or the court commits an error of law when reaching a discretionary decision.” Dowling v. Stapley, 221 Ariz. 251, 266, ¶ 45 (App. 2009).

2018“An abuse of discretion occurs when there is no evidence to support a holding or the court commits an error of law when reaching a discretionary decision.” Dowling v. Stapley, 221 Ariz. 251, 266, ¶ 45 (App. 2009); see also Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

2026“An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision.” Id.

2025An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision, DeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420, 423, ¶ 9 (App. 2019), or the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,” Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469 , 471, ¶ 4 (App. 2018) (quoting Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

2020"An abuse of discretion occurs when a court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion." In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 548, ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (citing Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

2018“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 548, ¶ 8 (App. 2008) (citing Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

2024Flying Diamond Airpark, LLC v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44 , 50 ¶ 27 (App. 2007).

2020Flying Diamond Airpark, LLC v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44, 50, ¶ 27 (App. 2007) (quoting Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

2021A court abuses its discretion "where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision." Id. (quoting Files v. Bernal, 200 Ariz. 64, 65, ¶ 2 (App. 2001)). ¶6 As an initial matter, the superior court did not abuse its discretion by treating the instant petition as one for post-conviction relief.

2020See State v. Cowles, 207 Ariz. 8, 9, ¶ 3 (App. 2004) ("Generally, a court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision." (citation omitted)). ¶7 While investigating the identity theft case, a detective obtained financial records showing a member of Coleman's group rented a hotel room using his own identification and financial information.

2015Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 213 Ariz. 344, 350, ¶ 17 , 141 P.3d 824, 830 (App. 2006) (quoting State v. Chappie, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n. 18, 660 P.2d 1208 , 1224 n. 18 (1983)); Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 876, 881 (App.2004) (“An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.”). ¶ 19 The purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-1103 is “to avoid needless litigation.” Mariposa Dev.

2015Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 213 Ariz. 344, 350, ¶ 17 , 141 P.3d 824, 830 (App. 2006) (quoting State v. Chappie, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n. 18, 660 P.2d 1208 , 1224 n. 18 (1983)); Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 876, 881 (App.2004) (“An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.”). ¶ 19 The purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-1103 is “to avoid needless litigation.” Mariposa Dev.

2025See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.” (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant's argument that trial court erred b

2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow

2025See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.” (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant's argument that trial court erred b

2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow

2023Engstom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469 , 471, ¶ 4 (App. 2018). ¶28 Although the additional compensation is Husband’s separate property, see A.R.S. § 25-213(B), see also Schickner, 237 Ariz. at 200, ¶ 27 , the community businesses owe the additional compensation, not just Wife.

2020Schickner v. Schickner, 237 Ariz. 194, 197, ¶ 13 (App. 2015).

2020Van Lines, Inc., 135 Ariz. 35, 40 (App. 1982). 5 MENDOZA v. STATE Decision of the Court ¶16 Mendoza bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony of her expert witnesses satisfied the requirements of Rule 702.

2006Van Lines, Inc., 135 Ariz. 35, 40 , 658 P.2d 835, 840 (App.1983).

2016See State v. Ross, 214 Ariz. 280, 283, ¶ 21 , 151 P.3d 1261, 1264 (App. 2007) (“An abuse of discre *233 tion exists when the trial court commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.”) (quoting Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 876, 881 (App. 2004)). ¶10 Because Father’s waiver was not final and properly accepted, he was not required, as DCS contends, to show manifest injustice before he could withdraw his waiver.

2016See State v. Ross, 214 Ariz. 280, 283, ¶ 21 , 151 P.3d 1261, 1264 (App. 2007) (“An abuse of discre *233 tion exists when the trial court commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.”) (quoting Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 56, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 876, 881 (App. 2004)). ¶10 Because Father’s waiver was not final and properly accepted, he was not required, as DCS contends, to show manifest injustice before he could withdraw his waiver.

2012An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law, State v. Sprang, 227 Ariz. 10, ¶ 5 , 251 P.3d 389, 391 (App.2011), or when its exercise of discretion "`is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons,'" State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, ¶ 11 , 161 P.3d 608, 613 (App. 2007), quoting State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 , 845 P.2d 487, 489 (App.1992). ¶ 5 Both the Arizona and United States Constitutions bar a defendant from being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

2012An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law, State v. Sprang, 227 Ariz. 10, ¶ 5 , 251 P.3d 389, 391 (App.2011), or when its exercise of discretion "`is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons,'" State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, ¶ 11 , 161 P.3d 608, 613 (App. 2007), quoting State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 , 845 P.2d 487, 489 (App.1992). ¶ 5 Both the Arizona and United States Constitutions bar a defendant from being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

2012An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law, State v. Sprang, 227 Ariz. 10, ¶ 5 , 251 P.3d 389, 391 (App.2011), or when its exercise of discretion "`is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons,'" State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, ¶ 11 , 161 P.3d 608, 613 (App. 2007), quoting State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 , 845 P.2d 487, 489 (App.1992). ¶ 5 Both the Arizona and United States Constitutions bar a defendant from being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

2012An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law, State v. Sprang, 227 Ariz. 10, ¶ 5 , 251 P.3d 389, 391 (App.2011), or when its exercise of discretion "`is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons,'" State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, ¶ 11 , 161 P.3d 608, 613 (App. 2007), quoting State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 , 845 P.2d 487, 489 (App.1992). ¶ 5 Both the Arizona and United States Constitutions bar a defendant from being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

2012An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law, State v. Sprang, 227 Ariz. 10, ¶ 5 , 251 P.3d 389, 391 (App.2011), or when its exercise of discretion "`is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons,'" State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, ¶ 11 , 161 P.3d 608, 613 (App. 2007), quoting State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 , 845 P.2d 487, 489 (App.1992). ¶ 5 Both the Arizona and United States Constitutions bar a defendant from being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

2012An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law, State v. Sprang, 227 Ariz. 10, ¶ 5 , 251 P.3d 389, 391 (App.2011), or when its exercise of discretion "`is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons,'" State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, ¶ 11 , 161 P.3d 608, 613 (App. 2007), quoting State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 , 845 P.2d 487, 489 (App.1992). ¶ 5 Both the Arizona and United States Constitutions bar a defendant from being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

2008See Webb v. Omni Block, Inc., 216 Ariz. 349, ¶ 6 , 166 P.3d 140, 143 (App.2007) ("An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion."); see also State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n. 18, 660 P.2d 1208 , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (appellate court not bound by trial court's discretionary rulings when "the facts or inferences from them are not in dispute and where there are few or no conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations"); Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216, ¶ 4 , 181 P.3d 1137, 1139 (App.2008) ("To soundly exercise its d

2008See Webb v. Omni Block, Inc., 216 Ariz. 349, ¶ 6 , 166 P.3d 140, 143 (App.2007) ("An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion."); see also State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n. 18, 660 P.2d 1208 , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (appellate court not bound by trial court's discretionary rulings when "the facts or inferences from them are not in dispute and where there are few or no conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations"); Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216, ¶ 4 , 181 P.3d 1137, 1139 (App.2008) ("To soundly exercise its d

2008See Webb v. Omni Block, Inc., 216 Ariz. 349, ¶ 6 , 166 P.3d 140, 143 (App.2007) ("An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion."); see also State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n. 18, 660 P.2d 1208 , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (appellate court not bound by trial court's discretionary rulings when "the facts or inferences from them are not in dispute and where there are few or no conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations"); Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216, ¶ 4 , 181 P.3d 1137, 1139 (App.2008) ("To soundly exercise its d

2008See Webb v. Omni Block, Inc., 216 Ariz. 349, ¶ 6 , 166 P.3d 140, 143 (App.2007) ("An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion."); see also State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 , 297 n. 18, 660 P.2d 1208 , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (appellate court not bound by trial court's discretionary rulings when "the facts or inferences from them are not in dispute and where there are few or no conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations"); Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216, ¶ 4 , 181 P.3d 1137, 1139 (App.2008) ("To soundly exercise its d

2026“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion[,]” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., 214 Ariz. 82 , 85 ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision[,]’” Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612 , 615 ¶ 7 (App. 2015) (quoting Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518 , 520 ¶ 5 (1999)). ¶7 Utilizing the Child Support Worksheet, the court found that Father earns $8,666.67 monthly and his child support payment would be $1,495 per

2024“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion,” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., 214 Ariz. 82, ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’” Milinovich, 236 Ariz. 612, ¶ 7 (quoting Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, ¶ 5 (1999)).

2026“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion[,]” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., 214 Ariz. 82 , 85 ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision[,]’” Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612 , 615 ¶ 7 (App. 2015) (quoting Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518 , 520 ¶ 5 (1999)). ¶7 Utilizing the Child Support Worksheet, the court found that Father earns $8,666.67 monthly and his child support payment would be $1,495 per

2024“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion,” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., 214 Ariz. 82, ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’” Milinovich, 236 Ariz. 612, ¶ 7 (quoting Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, ¶ 5 (1999)).

2026State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180, ¶ 4 (2017). ¶7 On review, Lawrence reasserts his IAC claim.1 “By entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, except those that relate to the validity of [his] plea.” State v. Leyva, 241 Ariz. 521, 527, ¶ 18 (App. 2017) (citation modified).

2026State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180, ¶ 4 (2017). ¶7 On review, Lawrence reasserts his IAC claim.1 “By entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, except those that relate to the validity of [his] plea.” State v. Leyva, 241 Ariz. 521, 527, ¶ 18 (App. 2017) (citation modified).

2025Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019). ¶11 When the superior court finds there is adequate cause to hear a petition to modify legal decision-making or parenting time orders, "it shall set a date for hearing on why the requested modification should not be granted." A.R.S. § 25-411(L). "[T]he court may modify or reduce parenting time by (1) determining 'whether a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child' exists, then (2) determining 'whether a change in custody will be in the best interests of the child.'" Mesa, ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶24 (emphasis ad

2025Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019). ¶11 When the superior court finds there is adequate cause to hear a petition to modify legal decision-making or parenting time orders, "it shall set a date for hearing on why the requested modification should not be granted." A.R.S. § 25-411(L). "[T]he court may modify or reduce parenting time by (1) determining 'whether a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child' exists, then (2) determining 'whether a change in custody will be in the best interests of the child.'" Mesa, ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶24 (emphasis ad

2025See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.” (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant's argument that trial court erred b

2025An abuse of discretion occurs "when the record is 'devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,' or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion." Engstrom, 243 Ariz. at 471, ¶ 4 (quoting Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009)). ¶21 On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence, see Gutierrez v. Fox, 242 Ariz. 259, 272, ¶ 49 (App. 2017), and "must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the decree." Spector v. Spector, 94 Ariz. 175, 179 (1963).

2025Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019). ¶11 When the superior court finds there is adequate cause to hear a petition to modify legal decision-making or parenting time orders, "it shall set a date for hearing on why the requested modification should not be granted." A.R.S. § 25-411(L). "[T]he court may modify or reduce parenting time by (1) determining 'whether a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child' exists, then (2) determining 'whether a change in custody will be in the best interests of the child.'" Mesa, ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶24 (emphasis ad

2025An abuse of discretion occurs "when the record is 'devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,' or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion." Engstrom, 243 Ariz. at 471, ¶ 4 (quoting Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009)). ¶21 On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence, see Gutierrez v. Fox, 242 Ariz. 259, 272, ¶ 49 (App. 2017), and "must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the decree." Spector v. Spector, 94 Ariz. 175, 179 (1963).