Denial of a motion to terminate a PPO; Credibility; People v Lemmon

Holding that none of respondent’s arguments entitled him to appellate relief, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying his motion to terminate a PPO and granting petitioner’s motion to extend the PPO. Petitioner was granted a PPO on behalf of herself and her minor daughter against respondent following a domestic relationship between them. Respondent’s first argument spoke to the weight of the evidence, something that is solely in the trial court’s discretion. It also mischaracterized the record. “Petitioner testified that she attempted to carry on the relationship after the first incidents during mid-December until New Year’s Eve because she did not know how to end it. Petitioner testified that, after criminal charges were filed, respondent threatened and harassed her, including attempting to intimidate her into not moving back to her own property.” While respondent noted that “he testified petitioner offered to drop the charges against him in exchange for money, he ignores that petitioner testified that it was respondent who actually offered her money in exchange for dropping the charges.” The court held that this credibility battle was for the trial court to decide. Regarding his second argument, respondent was “correct that the trial court heard no expert testimony about domestic violence. However, because the trial court extended the PPO for several principled reasons, reversal” was not required. Respondent’s third argument also lacked merit. “The trial court found that, despite his bond conditions, respondent possessed knowledge from his time as a probation officer and had the financial resources to harass petitioner and manipulate the system if the PPO was not in place.” It also found that it would have granted petitioner “a two-year order if the initial order was not ex parte because of the seriousness of the domestic and sexual violence allegations.” The trial court further noted that, “had there not been pending criminal charges, it might have felt differently” and given more weight to respondent’s testimony that the parties lived about an hour apart. “However, with charges still pending, and with accusations from both parties of offers to exchange money for dropping the charges, the trial court determined that the PPO was still necessary.” Respondent did not “establish that this was outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes under the circumstances.”