Marriage of Pimentel CA6

Filed 1/27/26 Marriage of Pimentel CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of Candelaria H052854 PIMENTEL and Antonio PIMENTEL (Santa Clara County SANCHEZ. Super. Ct. No. 21FL001221)

CANDELARIA PIMENTEL,

Respondent,

v.

ANTONIO PIMENTEL SANCHEZ,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant Antonio Pimentel Sanchez appeals from a judgment on reserved issues following the dissolution of his marriage to respondent Candelaria Pimentel. Ms. Pimentel did not file a respondent’s brief, so we decide the appeal based on Mr. Sanchez’s opening brief and the record he supplied. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)2 Mr. Sanchez seeks reversal of the judgment because: a) the trial court failed to provide timely notice of proceedings; b) Ms. Pimentel submitted a fraudulent

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852-855.) 2 All future rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

income and expense declaration; and c) the court failed to provide a competent Spanish- language interpreter. We find no reversible error and therefore affirm. The record on appeal is limited to a status-only judgment, a judgment on reserved issues, the related minute orders, the notices of entry of both judgments, and the register of actions. From this limited record, the following facts and procedural history may be discerned. Ms. Pimentel filed a petition for dissolution of marriage without minor children in April 2021. Mr. Sanchez, then in state custody, filed a response several months later. During 2021 and 2022, the court set multiple settlement officer conferences by agreement of the parties, as reflected in the notation “set by agmt,” and issued notices of status conferences. Thereafter, the case remained inactive until Mr. Sanchez filed a request for trial in March 2024, followed by a status conference in May 2024. In July 2024, Ms. Pimentel filed a request to bifurcate and terminate marital status, along with a proof of service by mail. The court granted her request on October 3, 2024 and filed the status-only judgment on October 21. The notice of entry reflects that the judgment was mailed to Mr. Sanchez at Soledad State Prison. The court held a status conference on October 24, 2024 and conducted a hearing on November 14, at which both parties were present. At the hearing, the trial court made findings and orders on the reserved issues as it related to the parties’ assets and debts and directed Ms. Pimentel’s counsel to prepare the judgment. The judgment on reserved issues was filed on December 3, 2024. Mr. Sanchez timely appealed. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 (Jameson), citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).) It is the appellant’s burden to provide this court with an adequate record on appeal. (Maria P.