Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nohemi Sanchez sought a family-violence protective order against Rodolfo Perez Sanchez for herself and their two minor children. She testified that Perez ripped a watch from her wrist and struck her legs with a horse whip in February 2025. She also described a June 2025 incident in which he threatened sexual violence, pulled her by the hair, forced his genitals against her face, pinned her down, took her phone, and struck her face while a child was present.
Nohemi further testified that Perez later entered the marital home in violation of bond conditions and damaged the front door. The evidence included certified charging documents concerning the alleged family-violence assault and repeated violations of court orders or bond conditions. Perez denied the domestic-violence allegations. The trial court credited Nohemi, disbelieved Perez, and issued a two-year protective order covering Nohemi and the children, allowing Perez supervised visitation and suspending any license he held to carry a handgun.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Nohemi’s testimony, together with the admitted complaints, information, and indictments, legally and factually supported the challenged findings that Perez committed family violence, had a history or pattern of family violence, and violated bond conditions. The trial court was entitled to resolve the conflicting testimony and determine witness credibility.
The court also rejected Perez’s conclusory challenges to including the children, requiring supervised visitation, suspending his handgun license, and setting the order’s duration at two years. Those forms of relief were authorized by the Texas Family Code, and the children’s presence during the violence supported their inclusion in the order. Perez waived his separate complaint that the trial court failed to adopt his requested findings because his brief did not provide developed legal argument or supporting authority.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court’s credibility determinations receive substantial deference when it serves as factfinder in a family-violence protective-order proceeding.
- Nohemi’s credited testimony, considered with the admitted criminal complaints, information, and indictments, supported the challenged family-violence findings.
- Conclusory appellate complaints unsupported by legal analysis and authority may be waived under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary and briefing hurdles facing an appellant who challenges a Texas family-violence protective order. An appellate court will not reweigh credibility merely because the respondent disputes the applicant’s account, and challenges to particular protective-order terms require developed argument addressing the Family Code provisions authorizing that relief.