NOBLES v. OGLESBY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. FILED BY CLERK MAR 23 2012 COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) AMBER OGLESBY, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) ) DIVISION TWO KENNETH NOBLES, 2 CA-CV 2011-0138 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. SP20101381 Honorable Deborah S. Ward, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Kenneth Nobles Tucson In Propria Persona E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Appellant Kenneth Nobles appeals from the trial court s denial of his petition to modify child support. Nobles, who appears before this court in propria persona, raises a number of complaints relating to child support and parenting time. In his opening brief, however, he omits a statement of issues presented for review, and he provides no citations to the record or to any legal authorities to support his contentions on appeal. ¶2 Parties who choose to represent themselves are entitled to no more consideration than if they had been represented by counsel and are held to the same standards as attorneys with respect to familiarity with required procedures and . . . notice of statutes and local rules. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008), quoting Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 53, 386 P.2d 649, 652 (1963) (omission in Williams). Due to Nobles s failure to comply with Rule 13(a)(4) and (6), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., he has waived any assignment of error. See Spillios v. Green, 137 Ariz. 443, 447, 671 P.2d 421, 425 (App. 1983); cf. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (finding waiver under analogous rule of criminal procedure based on argument [being] insufficient for appellate review ). ¶3 The trial court s order entered December 6, 2010, is affirmed. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.