trial court make findings of fact or conclusions of law. When there is no request for findings and the trial court does not make specific findings of fact, “we ‘must assume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support its [ruling] and must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.’ ” In re Estate of Shumway, 197 Ariz. 57, 61, ¶ 9, 3 P.3d 977, 981 (App.1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Stevenson v. Stevenson, 132 Ariz. 44, 46, 643 P.2d 1014, 1016 (1982)), vacated in part on other grounds, 198 Ariz. 323, 9 P.3d 1062 (2000). The foregoing proposition pre sumes, however, that the trial court did not otherwise abuse its discretion by misapplying the law. Grant v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 455-56, 652 P.2d 507, 528-29 (1982) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 14 Bearing in mind that the Restrictions
holding that sentencing court abuses its discretion by committing a clear error of judgment holding that trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error of law recognizing that we review a trial courts jury instruc tions for abuse of discretion and that a district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law internal quotation marks omitted holding that a court abuses its discretion by making clear errors of judgment recognizing that the trial court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision