Robin Boutin v. Juan Rivera Ortiz

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0364, Robin Boutin v. Juan Rivera Ortiz,
the court on December 18, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the defendant’s brief and the record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Juan Rivera Ortiz, appeals a domestic violence final order
of protection issued by the Circuit Court (Lyons, J.), in favor of the plaintiff,
Robin Boutin. See RSA 173-B:5 (Supp. 2015). We construe his brief as
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the order. To the extent
the defendant also challenges the trial court’s rulings in a separate parenting
proceeding, we note that, in accordance with our order of July 17, 2015, that
proceeding is not properly before us in this appeal.

It is the defendant’s burden, as the appealing party, to provide this court
with a record that is sufficient to decide the issues he is raising. Bean v. Red
Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (“If the
moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”). Absent a transcript of the final hearing, we must assume that
the evidence submitted at trial was sufficient to support the trial court’s order.
Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We confine our review only to those issues that the
defendant has fully briefed. State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003). These
procedural rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the Matter
of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).

In this case, the defendant has not provided a transcript of the final
hearing on the plaintiff’s petition for a protective order. Accordingly, we must
assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the final order of protection
issued by the trial court. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. Nor has the defendant
presented any fully developed legal arguments in his brief establishing that the
trial court erred. See Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49. Accordingly, we affirm the
final order of protection issued by the trial court in this case.
 In light of this order, the plaintiff’s request for an opportunity to file a
brief and respond to the allegations in the defendant’s brief, which we treat as
a motion to reconsider our order of November 19, 2015, is moot.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2