justicejournal

[justicejournal]

SPALETTA v. WILLIAMS | 2014 Ark.App. 112 | 20140212032

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge.

Appellant Jeff J. Spaletta appeals the order of protection filed on May 2, 2013, in Crittenden County Circuit Court case DR-2012-1034. This order disallowed Jeff from contacting the mother of his child, appellee Renada Rochelle Williams, from January 9, 2013, to January 9, 2014. Jeff argues two points on appeal: (1) that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous because the evidence is insufficient to sustain the entry of an order of protection, and (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Background

On December 20, 2012, Renada Rochelle Williams filed a petition for an order of protection against Jeff J. Spaletta, alleging that he engaged in threatening and harassing behavior. A hearing was held on January 9, 2013, during which both parties presented testimony and evidence. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the court issued an order of protection effective from January 9, 2013, to January 9, 2014, prohibiting Jeff from contacting Renada in any manner.

Standard of Review

In reviewing a trial court’s decision regarding an order of protection, this court will not reverse the decision unless it is clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Argument and Analysis

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Jeff argues that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous because the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to justify the order of protection. He contends that the evidence provided by Renada was unsubstantiated and did not establish a credible threat of harm.

However, testimony from Renada and corroborating witnesses indicated that Jeff engaged in repeated unwanted communication and made statements that caused her to fear for her safety. The trial court found Renada’s testimony credible and determined that her fear was reasonable under the circumstances. Given our deferential standard of review, we cannot say that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous.

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Jeff further argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. He asserts that newly discovered evidence, which was not presented at the initial hearing, would have changed the outcome of the case.

However, motions for reconsideration are granted only in limited circumstances, typically when new evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the hearing. In this case, the trial court determined that the proffered evidence was either not new or would not have altered the outcome. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Jeff’s motion for reconsideration.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s decision to uphold the order of protection against Jeff J. Spaletta.