Sandoval v. Mendez

521 A.2d 1168, 1987 D.C. App. LEXIS 299

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 6, 1987
• Docket: 85-1112
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Sandoval contends the trial court erroneously concluded as a matter of law that she was not entitled to a civil protection order since she did not have an “intimate relationship” with Jose Mendez within the meaning of D.C.Code § 16-1001(5)(B) (1986 Supp.). We affirm.

Sandoval lived in a common household with her boyfriend (Marquez) and Mendez and his girlfriend (Claros). Marquez and Claros are cousins. Sandoval, claiming all four of the members of the household were involved in violence, sought a civil protection order against the other three. She withdrew her request as to her boyfriend; Claros signed a consent order. The matter proceeded to a hearing as to Mendez. Sandoval presented her case, pro se. On the sparse record before us,¹ it appears that the trial court did not rule as a matter of law that an “intimate relationship” as a matter of law, must be a sexual one, as Sandoval contends. Rather, it appears that the trial court found as a fact that there was no showing of an “intimate relationship.” On this record, we cannot say that such factual finding is “plainly wrong.” D.C.Code § 17-305(a) (1981).²

Affirmed.

APPENDIX

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Have a seat. We will finish our preliminary matters and then we will hear the matter with Mr. Mendez because that is not a consent it appears all right? Thank you.

MS. BUCK: Thank you.

* * * * * *

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Returning to No. 10 in the matter of Julia Sandoval versus Jose Mendez, IF 500-85.

THE COURT: Señor Mendez.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Parties give your name for the record.

MR. MENDEZ: Jose Mendez.

MR. LORD: Bernardo Lord, Your Hon- or.

MS. SANDOVAL: Julia Sandoval.

MS. BUCK: Anna Buck.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Both parties raise your right hands.

[Thereupon, the parties were sworn by the Deputy Clerk.]

THE COURT: Siente se. Señor, que nombre, por favor.

Tell me what happened on May 2.

Un momento.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] She was close to him and tried to hear him what he was talking.

Marita Claros and Jose Mendez, they come out and they get in both sides of the car.

THE COURT: Who is the boyfriend? Se novio nombre?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] Jose Francisco Marques.

So she asked Marita Claros why she was angry because she was close to Francisco Marques.

She did not know he was her boyfriend.

She said she should be angry if I get close to your boyfriend when I get close to her boyfriend.

She don’t remember how she answered her.

THE COURT: All right. Can we get past the talking.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] She was saying — she was asking Mrs. Marita Claros was she angry with her because she get close to her cousin.

THE COURT: Um-hmm.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] And she answered her, you having anything with him?

THE COURT: Um-hmm. And then what happened?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.]: So when she claimed that to her, she threw to her a can of baby milk.

THE COURT: Ms. Claros did, threw milk, a bottle? Is that what you’re talking about?

MS. BUCK: A can.

THE COURT: A can of baby milk at her.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] Okay. So when she saw herself with a lot of blood soo she gonna try to—

THE COURT: Just a minute, please, just a minute. You’re going much too fast for me.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] Okay. So when she saw all this blood on her hand, she tried to get Martha Claros and her boyfriend started beating her.

THE COURT: Whose boyfriend?

MS. BUCK: Martha Claros’ boyfriend.

THE COURT: Is that Mr. Mendez? What did he do?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Response in Spanish].

THE COURT: No, I don’t want you to tell me what happened. What did he do? Did he do something with his hands, with his foot? What did he do?

THE COURT: And where was Ms. Cla-ros at this time?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] Beating her too. At the same time her boyfriend was beating her and her — okay, Mr. Marques beat her and then hit her in the mouth.

THE COURT: Mr. Mendez or Mr. Marques?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] Mr. Marques was holding her in back.

THE COURT: That’s your boyfriend was holding you in the back. Su novio.

MS. SANDOVAL: Yes, Your Honor.

[Through the Interpreter.] And Mr. Mendez was punching her in the mouth and in the head and Mrs. Claros was pulling her hair.

She said because she doesn’t know any English, she would go to her brother’s house to call the police.

She found the police in the street and she stopped them.

The police gave her a little paper to go court.

THE COURT: Is there any relationship between Ms. Sandoval and Mr. Mendez?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do they live in the same place?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] No. They used to live together.

THE COURT: They used to live together where?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] They used to live Julia Sandoval and her boyfriend whose — what is the name of su novio?

Jose Francisco Marques.

THE COURT: And Mr. Mendez.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] And Mr. Mendez and Ms. Claros.

THE COURT: All used to live together.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] They all used to live together when this occurred.

THE COURT: And was Mr. Mendez ever Ms. Sandoval’s boyfriend?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] Marques.

THE COURT: Si. Pero Señor Mendez.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Response in Spanish.]

THE COURT: Anything else you want to tell me?

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] No, that’s all.

THE COURT: Step down, please.

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] (Indiscernible)_

THE COURT: Yes, I understand that.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Thomas, would you approach the bench, please?

[Thereupon Ms. Thomas approached the bench and conferred with the Court, as follows:]

THE COURT: I don’t think we have jurisdiction over this. The only one that we have is when she was (indiscernible), right?

MS. THOMAS: Right.

THE COURT: They are not willing to (indiscernible) relationship.

MS. THOMAS: I don’t know. I think they (indiscernible). They had lived together in the past year.

THE COURT: Yes, but it requires (indiscernible), intimate relationship and I couldn’t get one here, right? I mean, you don’t know of any.

MS. THOMAS: Not at all.

THE COURT: I missed that interpreter’s name. Do you know her name?

MS. THOMAS: Anna Buck.

THE COURT: All right. (Indiscernible). ...

[Thereupon the proceedings had at the bench were concluded; Ms. Thomas returned to her seat; and the hearing resumed, as follows:]

THE COURT: In order for something— perhaps you would translate for your client’s benefit while I’m talking and of course.

In order for something to qualify as a intrafamily offense, the people who lived together must have also have had an intimate relationship. In other words, not everybody who shares a house or even an apartment falls within the jurisdiction of the statute against intrafamily offenses.

That’s not to say that you can beat up somebody just because you don’t have an intimate relationship with them. What it is to say is that it is a criminal offense but not an offense for which this court has jurisdiction to issue a civil protection order.

I understand, Ms. Buck, that the petition form unfortunately doesn’t stress that enough. But it does say it. If you notice it says, (1), the petitioner and respondent maintain or have maintained an intimate relationship, and (2), then there’s something else such as the living together.

MS. BUCK: Right. You don’t notice that it is one that says, now sharing or having shared the same resident within the last year.

THE COURT: That’s right, but that’s two things. (1) the sentence above that is that they have maintained an intimate relationship and one of the other things. And while they shared a residence, they did not appear to have an intimate relationship. That being the case, I don’t have jurisdiction to issue a civil protection order here.

As I said, that doesn’t mean that anybody, Mr. Mendez, or anyone else, can beat up anybody and — but what it does mean is that Ms. Sandoval will have to go elsewhere to get her remedy. Did Ms. Sandoval understand? What about if we—

MS. SANDOVAL: [Through the Interpreter.] No.

MS. BUCK: I was thinking different. I was wrong then because I was thinking that having shared the residence together, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I understand but you see it required that there have been an intimate relationship. That’s the first requirement no matter whether they shared an apartment or not.

MS. BUCK: Okay.

THE COURT: So the case against Mr. Mendez in this Court is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

If Ms. Mendez — I’m sorry — if Ms. Sandoval wants to pursue other remedies she can speak to the U.S. Attorney’s Office which is right in this building.

MS. SANDOVAL: [In Spanish]

THE COURT: I’m sorry.

MS. SANDOVAL: Thank you.

[Thereupon the proceedings were concluded.]

1 . Given the basis of our disposition of this case, and the views expressed by our dissenting Brother, we attach as an Appendix hereto, the full transcript of the evidentiary hearing and ruling. For the convenience of the reader, we note that Ms. Buck was the interpreter and Ms. Thomas appears to be a representative of the Department of Human Services.

2 . To the extent that portions of the transcript reflect "undiscemible”, we note that the party on appeal contending the tried court erred has the obligation of presenting to us a sufficient record to establish error. Cobb v. Standard Drug Company, Inc., 453 A.2d 110 (D.C.1982).

We further note that D.C.Code § 16-1005(c) makes the issuance of a civil protection order discretioneuy with the trial court. On this record, we can find no abuse of discretion. See Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C.1979).