Smith v. Smith

── Smith v. Smith ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0696 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 23, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Matter of: KEELEY SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. MICHELET MICHAEL SMITH, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0696 FC FILED 03-23-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2025-092515 The Honorable Lisa C. Boddington, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Michelet Michael Smith, Mesa Respondent/Appellant  SMITH v. SMITH Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Veronika Fabian and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Michelet Michael Smith (“Michelet”) argues the superior court erred by denying his motions directed at challenging an order of protection obtained by his former wife, Keeley Smith (“Keeley”).1 Although Keeley did not file an answering brief, we affirm because Michelet has not raised any debatable issues. BACKGROUND ¶2 In June 2025, Keeley petitioned for an order of protection, alleging Michelet left a note on her car referencing a prior, expiring order of protection. The note stated in part, “enjoy today as it is your last, the only mistake the devil made was to let his existence known, sex is a simple transaction.” Keeley also alleged Michelet (1) owned or carried a firearm and (2) mailed a letter to her home in violation of the earlier order of protection. ¶3 The superior court granted Keeley’s petition, ordering Michelet to have no contact with her except for email to discuss parenting issues, or through attorneys, legal processes, and court hearings. The court determined Michelet posed a credible threat to Keeley’s physical safety and ordered him not to possess firearms under A.R.S. § 13-3602(G)(4). ¶4 Michelet objected, claiming the language used in his note was “philosophical and metaphorical,” and not meant to threaten or harass. He asserted the order of protection was a “continuation of retaliatory actions amid civil and family legal proceedings” and the “firearm restriction [against him] lack[ed] a factual nexus to any credible threat.” Several days 1 This court recently affirmed the superior court’s decree dissolving the parties’ marriage. See In re Marriage of Smith & Smith, 2 CA-CV 2025- 0101-FC, 2026 WL 146663, at *1, ¶ 1 (Ariz. App. Jan. 20, 2026) (mem. decision). For ease of reference here, we use the parties’ first names. 2  SMITH v. SMITH Decision of the Court later, Michelet requested a hearing on the order of protection. The superior court granted his request and set a contested hearing for August 7, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Court staff personally served Michelet with the hearing notice. ¶5 Michelet failed to appear at the scheduled time and did not contact the court to explain his absence. According to the minute entry, court staff checked outside the courtroom several times for Michelet, and the court waited until 8:36 a.m. to start the hearing. After the court heard sworn testimony from Keeley, the hearing ended at 8:48 a.m. The court continued the order of protection and amended it to include a Brady Indicator. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). ¶6 Michelet filed a notice of appeal and moved to modify the or