Martinez v. Martinez

• Docket Number: CA2023-04-038
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: ROSA MARTINEZ, Appellee, v. ANEUDYS MARTINEZ, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-4783

ROSA MARTINEZ, Appellee,
v.
ANEUDYS MARTINEZ, Appellant.

No. CA2023-04-038

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

December 28, 2023

Appeal from Butler County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division Case No. DV22100746

Rosa Martinez, pro se.

Gary A. McGee, for appellant.

OPINION

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Aneudys Martinez ("Husband") timely appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas granting a domestic violence civil protection order ("DVCPO") in favor of Rosa Martinez ("Wife").

{¶ 2} On October 26, 2022, Wife filed a petition for a DVCPO against Husband. A temporary ex parte DVCPO was issued that day, and a final hearing was scheduled for

2

November 8, 2022. The final DVCPO hearing commenced as scheduled, but due to time constraints, the hearing was continued in progress until November 21, 2022. Wife was instructed to provide Husband's counsel with a witness list before the next hearing date and photos Wife claimed she possessed that showed her injuries.

{¶ 3} At the November 21 hearing, it was determined that Wife did not provide a witness list or the alleged photos to Husband's counsel. In addition, Husband's counsel informed the court that he did not bring any additional witnesses because he believed Wife was going to dismiss the case. Nonetheless, Husband's counsel expressed readiness to proceeded with the hearing. Wife and Husband were the only individuals to testify during the hearing, and their testimony was the only evidence presented to the court.

{¶ 4} Wife testified that she and Husband, though living together, had been sleeping in separate beds for two months. She claimed that at the end of September, Husband yelled at her, grabbed her, and became angry with her after seeing some messages on her phone wherein Wife was flirting with a man she met at work. Wife stated she and this individual were not in a relationship, and the texts had been occurring for about a month.

{¶ 5} Wife further testified that a few days later, as Husband and Wife were talking, Husband became angry, told her to leave their marital home, grabbed her, and pushed her into the refrigerator. According to Wife, Husband then began breaking items in the house and threatened to damage Wife's vehicle which Husband had bought. Wife did not call the police after this incident. Wife further claimed that in their eight years of marriage, Husband subjected Wife to regular "psychological violence."

{¶ 6} According to Wife, she moved out of the home and into Husband's father's home after these incidents. Wife later moved into an apartment. Wife admitted that Husband helped move Wife's belongings to the apartment and that he had given her approximately $2,600 to help cover her apartment's deposit and rent.

3

{¶ 7} Sometime after this move, Husband called Wife and related a story about a local barber. The barber had purportedly found inciting messages on his wife's phone, killed her, and then killed himself. Wife testified she felt this conversation was a threat.

{¶ 8} During cross-examination, Wife testified that she worked for Honeywell, and she admitted she suffered a work injury on the upper back side of her leg. The record did not specify which leg. Wife denied claiming to other people that this injury was caused by Husband.

{¶ 9} Husband testified that Wife planned to move out because she developed a relationship with her coworker at Honeywell. He admitted to accessing her phone and reading messages on her Instagram account. The messages, according to Husband, included Wife telling her coworker to come over to her apartment when it was ready. Husband testified that he and Wife agreed she would move out because he did not want to continue their relationship if she was talking to and flirting with another man. Husband claimed he never grabbed or pushed Wife and that the alleged photos of her injury were of her work injury.

{¶ 10} Husband admitted he told Wife about the news story involving the barber, but he asserted he did so because he was also a barber and just informing her of the news. In his words, "I told her because she moved to Fairfield. I told her that (indiscernible) in Ohio and people shouldn't do things like that. And that's not good. People is crazy now days [sic]."

{¶ 11} The magistrate issued a final DVCPO and gave two separate grounds for doing so: (1) Husband had, on multiple occasions, attempted to or recklessly caused Wife bodily injury; and (2) Husband placed Wife, by the threat of force, in fear of imminent serious physical harm. Among other restrictions, the order prohibited Husband from contacting Wife and ordered him to stay away from her. Husband filed objections to the magistrate's

4

decision. The trial court overruled the objections and adopted the decision of the magistrate. This appeal followed.

{¶ 12} First Assignment of Error:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION/ORDER OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 FOR [sic] A FINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CIVIL PROTECTION

...