Background
Cecille Doromal Waller sought an injunction against harassment against Rolan Sagmit in October 2025. Her petition described four alleged incidents at events hosted by members of a civic organization in which both participated.
The superior court initially issued a one-year injunction barring Sagmit from contacting Waller and another person. Sagmit denied harassing Waller, requested a hearing, and asserted that her petition was retaliation for an affidavit he had filed with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office. After an evidentiary hearing at which both parties and other witnesses testified, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Sagmit had committed harassment or might do so in the future, and left the injunction in effect.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Sagmit argued that the evidence did not establish the statutorily required series of harassing acts, but he did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. In that circumstance, the appellate court presumed that the missing record supported the superior court’s ruling and found no basis to reverse the injunction.
The court also rejected Sagmit’s due-process arguments, including claims concerning his interpreter, undisclosed evidence, uneven application of rules, reliance on statements by a non-testifying person, and judicial bias. The available record showed that Sagmit had notice of the hearing, appeared, testified, and offered evidence; absent a transcript, the court presumed the record supported the challenged rulings.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging the evidentiary basis for an injunction must provide the hearing transcript.
- Without a transcript, the appellate court presumes the record supports the superior court’s findings and rulings.
- Notice, an opportunity to appear, testify, and offer evidence supported the conclusion that Sagmit had not shown a due-process violation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of preserving a complete appellate record in protective-order litigation. Arguments about witness testimony, evidentiary rulings, interpretation, or hearing fairness will generally fail on appeal when the transcript needed to evaluate them is absent.