Tag Archives: Protective orders

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001016

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to issue protective orders, because the defendant was not convicted of a qualifying offense, and the person for whose benefit order was issued was not a victim of the defendant’s crime.

First Holding:

Section 136.2(i)(1) provides authority for the imposition of postconviction protective orders where a defendant is convicted of a qualifying domestic violence offense.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Second Holding:

Domestic violence is abuse committed against, among other categories of victims, a person with whom the defendant had a dating relationship. Domestic violence is abuse perpetrated against (a) a spouse or former spouse[; (b) a cohabitant or former cohabitant; (c) a person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship; (d) a person with whom the respondent has had a child; (e) [a] child of a party; or (f) any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.

“Abuse” is the intentional or reckless causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or herself, or another. Section 136(3) defines “victim” as any natural person with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime as defined under the laws of this state or any other statute or of the United States is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated.

Thus, a postconviction protective order under section 136.2(i)(1) is authorized if: (1) the defendant has been convicted of one (or more) of the statutorily enumerated crimes; and (2) the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crime(s).

Authority:

PEN 13700

FAM 6211

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 139

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

Third Holding:

Courts do not have inherent authority to issue a criminal protective order absent a statute authorizing such an order.

Authority:

People v. Corrales (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 283, 286-287

Fourth Holding:

The defendant was not convicted of a domestic violence or other offense that authorized the court to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1). His conviction did not justify a protective order. Nor was the protected person a victim of his crime.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901 [where the defendant’s convictions are not domestic violence offenses, the court does not have statutory authority to impose a postconviction protective order, and it must be stricken]

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648 [the Legislature amended section 136.2(i)(1), in 2018 to specify that a victim is only a victim of the crime the defendant was convicted of committing]

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 143 [if there is no reason to believe that an enumerated section 136.2(i)(1) offense for which the defendant was convicted is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated against a particular person, that person is not a victim and may not seek, or be named as protected party by, a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1)]

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000977

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the no-contact and stay-away orders imposed by the trial court as part of his prison sentence and as a condition of his parole following his conviction for petty theft and making criminal threats.

The Attorney General argues the defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the orders in the trial court.

We disagree and strike the no-contact and stay-away orders because the trial court lacked authority to issue them and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

Normally, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. In the sentencing context, we have applied the rule to claims of error asserted by both the People and the defendant.

We have, however, created a narrow exception to the waiver rule for unauthorized sentences or sentences entered in excess of jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852

Second Holding:

A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court. A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Third Holding:

The trial court did not have statutory authority to impose no-contact or stay-away orders in these circumstances. While there are statutory provisions that allow a trial court to impose no-contact and stay-away orders in other circumstances, for example, domestic violence cases, cases involving sexual assault of a minor, stalking cases, as a condition of probation, or during active criminal proceedings, there are no statutes specifically authorizing the trial court here to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as part of the defendant’s prison sentence or as a condition of his parole.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

PEN 1202.05(a)

PEN 646.9(k)

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 136.2

Fourth Holding:

Ponce rejected the argument that that trial courts, independent of statutes, have inherent authority to protect trial participants, citing both California and federal cases. It held that even if the trial court had relied on inherent judicial authority to issue its order, the result would not change.

An existing body of statutory law regulates restraining orders. Inherent powers should never be exercised in such a manner as to nullify existing legislation. Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.

The trial court here should have refrained from acting because there is an existing body of statutory law regulating no-contact and stay-away orders.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384

Fifth Holding:

The Legislature has adopted specific statutory provisions authorizing parole boards to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of parole. Under this statutory scheme, the victims here can request the parole board to include no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of the defendant’s parole.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a) authorizes trial courts to issue orders to protect against any threats or harassment after notice and hearing.

Therefore, because the Legislature already authorizes available procedures for no-contact and stay-away orders for the victims in this case, the trial court was not authorized to impose them under its inherent authority.

Authority:

PEN 3053.2(a) [the parole board must impose a no-contact order as a condition of parole if requested by the victim]

PEN 3053(a) [the parole board may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may deem proper]

CCP 527.6(a)

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000914

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After trial, the trial court issued a criminal protective order (CPO) barring the defendant from contacting his ex-wife and their two minor children. The CPO also included a pretrial order prohibiting him from dissuading the victim or witnesses from attending court hearings.

The order, however, left unselected an option that would allow exceptions for future juvenile, family, or probate court orders for the safe exchange of children and court-ordered visitation.

The CPO should not include the defendant’s children as protected parties, and it should not have included the pretrial provision regarding the dissuading of witnesses. The lack of any exceptions for future orders from other courts does not reflect the trial court’s oral ruling. We therefore partially vacate the CPO and modify it accordingly.

First Holding:

Criminal protective orders are governed by section 136.2; the trial court may issue a pretrial order under subdivision (a) of the statute, which does not survive after final judgment is rendered.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 236

Second Holding:

Section 136.2(i) authorizes posttrial orders if the defendant has been convicted of a qualifying offense, including those involving domestic violence. In a postconviction order, the court may bar the defendant from contacting a victim of the crime, or a percipient witness to the crime. The trial court issued the challenged CPO after trial. The trial court erred by entering a pretrial order.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1) and (i)(2)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 236-237

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 143

Third Holding:

The trial court should not have included the defendant’s children as protected parties under the CPO. The jury convicted walker of assault on his ex-wife, which is a qualifying domestic violence offense. However, nothing in the record indicates that the defendant’s children were victims or percipient witnesses of that crime. As such, there was no basis to include the defendant’s children as protected parties.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

FAM 13700(a) and (b).)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237 [children who were present during domestic violence event, but asleep, did not qualify as victims or percipient witnesses under sec. 136.2(i)]

Fourth Holding:

The trial court expressed its intention to let the family court deal with any potential exceptions to its no-contact order. However, the trial court did not select item 14(b), which would allow an exception for future orders from another court. The CPO therefore does not match the trial court’s stated ruling.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for it order regarding modifying the CPO to permit another court to consider exceptions. When the abstract of judgment or minute order does not comport with the oral pronouncement, the court certainly has the power to make corrections. I have listed some cases on that point below, but keep in mind, they deal with abstracts of judgments and minute orders, not criminal protective orders. But remember that section 1260 grants the appellate courts very broad power to amend the judgment.)

Authority:

PEN 1260 [The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000811

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to order a stay-away order upon sentencing the defendant. Otherwise, we affirm the court’s sentencing choices.

First Holding:

Under section 136.2, when the court has a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the court is authorized to issue a restraining order. Orders made under section 136.2 are operative only during the pendency of criminal proceedings and as prejudgment orders. The only purpose of a section 136.2 protective order is to protect victims and witnesses in connection with the criminal proceeding in which the restraining order is issued in order to allow participation without fear of reprisal.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324–1325

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383, 384 [Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.]

Second Holding:

We also observe that courts must, at the time of sentencing for certain crimes, consider issuing a protective order prohibiting a defendant from contacting a victim. None of these other statutes are applicable in this matter. The order issued against the defendant therefore transcended the authorization of section 136.2 and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

PEN 273.5

PEN 646.9(k)

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 160
We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. Under this standard of review, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

Authority:
People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847

Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711–712

Third Holding:

To prove an abuse of discretion, the burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review

Authority:

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a sentencing court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) does not mandate a presumption in favor of the lower term in every case in which the defendant generally falls under one of the categories enumerated in the subdivision. Rather, the statute is clear that childhood trauma (or one of the other two categories in subdivision (b)(6)) must be a contributing factor to the offense in order to qualify for a presumption of the low term in sentencing. On this record, we cannot say that the court failed to consider section 1170(b)(6), or that its decision to impose the middle term notwithstanding the provision was so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988, 991 [In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.]

People v. Hilburn (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 189, 204, fn. 6

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000753

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Three of the protective orders issued by the trial court under section 136.2 exceeded the court’s authority and should be vacated. There is a clerical error in the defendant’s abstract of judgment that requires correction.

First Holding:

Restraining orders under section 136.2 are authorized only for victims of certain specified offenses including certain domestic violence crimes, sexual offenses like rape, gang-related crimes, or crimes requiring registration as a sex offender. Three of the people for whom a protective order was issued were not victims of the defendant’s crimes, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue those orders.

Authority:

People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965, 996

Second Holding:

Issuance of a restraining order in excess of jurisdiction can be corrected at any time.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381–382

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment erroneously states that the punishment on the special circumstance was stayed. It was not stayed and the abstract of judgment must be corrected.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–188

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000733

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We strike the protective order, because none of the offenses involved domestic violence. We also remand to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence on his ability to pay the restitution fine and assessments.

First Holding:

Although initially charged with crimes involving domestic violence, his guilty plea was to a crime that did not involved domestic violence as defined in section 13700 or in Family Code section 6211. His crime is not specifically listed in section 136.2(i)(1), and it does not require registration as a sex offender. Hence, the trial court was without authority at sentencing to issue the criminal protective order for the victim’s benefit under section 136.2(i)(1). As the court did not have statutory authority to issue the criminal protective order, it must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Second Holding:

The court imposed a $2,400 restitution fine, as well as a $2,400 parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. The court also imposed a $40 court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)).

After sentencing, while this matter was still on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kopp. As to punitive fines, including restitution fines, the court found that due process does not require a trial court to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine.

However, the court also noted that both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit excessive fines, and held that the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.

As to court operations assessments and court facilities assessments, which are ancillary costs, the court held that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment.

Because neither defendant nor the trial court had the benefit of Kopp’s reasoning and holding at the time of the sentencing hearing, we will direct the court to give defendant an opportunity to challenge the restitution fine and the assessments under Kopp.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13, 23, 30

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000630

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose a no contact order under section 1202.05, because the victim was an adult. The trial court was required, however, to consider whether to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1). We accordingly remand the matter for the trial court to do so. In addition, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the restitution fine was stayed, and to reflect the actual date of sentencing. Also, the minute order fails to reflect the true finding of aggravating circumstances on one of the counts.

First Holding:

Section 1202.05 provides that if a defendant receives a prison sentence for certain sexual offenses against a victim who is a child under the age of 18 years, the court shall prohibit all visitation between the defendant and the child victim. The restrictions on visitation imposed by the provision apply only to victims who are under the age of 18 at the time of the contemplated visitation. Section 136.2(i)(1) does provide authority for the court to impose a protective order.

Although the trial court acknowledged the victim’s status as an adult when it issued the order, there is nothing in the record to show that the trial court contemplated issuing the no-contact order under section 136.2(i)(1). Moreover, the no-contact order issued by the court did not conform to the requirements of section 136.2(i)(1). Section 136.2(i)(1) provides in part that, when a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to section 290(c), the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime.

Authority:

PEN 1202.05

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1323

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains clerical errors that should be corrected. At sentencing, the court imposed but stayed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b). The abstract of judgment reflects that the fine was imposed but not that it was stayed. I

n addition, the abstract incorrectly indicates that the defendant was sentenced more than a month after the date he was actually sentenced. We accordingly direct the trial court to amend the abstract to make these corrections. In addition, the sentencing minute order should be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence orally pronounced.

The corrected minute order from the bifurcated proceeding at which the trial court found the aggravating circumstances true does not reflect that the court found those circumstances true as to one of the counts.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-188

People v. Wynn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1221

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000540

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of five offenses arising from a violent, domestic-violence-related altercation. The trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. The court issued a protective order outside of its jurisdiction under Penal Code section 136.2. The court miscalculated the total assessment due from the defendant pursuant to Government Code section 70373(a). We vacate the protective order and reverse the judgment, remanding for a possible retrial on one conviction and for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law.

Authority:

People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 195

Second Holding:

In a criminal case, a jury verdict must be unanimous. When an accusatory pleading charges the defendant with a single criminal act, and the evidence presented at trial tends to show more than one such unlawful act, either the prosecution must elect the specific act relied upon to prove the charge to the jury, or the court must instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same specific criminal act. The unanimity instruction requirement is intended to eliminate the danger that the defendant will be convicted even though there is no single offense which all the jurors agree the defendant committed. If required, the instruction must be given sua sponte.

Authority:

People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132

People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534

People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199

Third Holding:

If a prosecutor elects to rely upon a specific act to prove a charged crime, then the trial court has no duty to give the jury an instruction that it must unanimously agree on the act that constituted the crime charged.

Authority:

People v. Hawkins (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1455

Fourth Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury with the elements of assault with a deadly weapon, but did not instruct them with the elements of simple assault. We conduct an independent review of the question of whether this was error.

Authority:

People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that it was error for the to not instruct the jury with the elements of simple assault. A trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. Simple assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault The trial court, accordingly, was required to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault if a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant committed only a simple assault and not an assault with a deadly weapon.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

People v. McDaniel (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 736, 747

Sixth Holding:

Under section 245 (assault with a deadly weapon), an object may be a deadly weapon in two ways. First, objects are considered deadly weapons as a matter of law, or deadly per se, when the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such. Typical examples include dirks and blackjacks. Second, if an object is not inherently deadly, the prosecution must prove to the trier of fact that the object was used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury. Objects which have been found to be a deadly weapon based on the way they were used include a pillow, an automobile, a large rock, a razor blade, and a fingernail file. A wrench is not inherently deadly as a matter of law. It is designed and typically used for innocent purposes.

Authority:

People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028-1029

People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1054

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6

Seventh Holding:

Based on the evidence, we conclude reasonable jurors could have decided the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant assaulted the victim with the wrench but was insufficient to prove he did so in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury. And so we must reverse the judgment and conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Under settled law, the judgment will be modified unless the People elect to retry the defendant on the greater charge and are successful.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 118

Eighth Holding:

Whether section 136.2(i)(1) authorized the court to issue a protective order against a defendant is an issue of statutory interpretation we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 645

Ninth Holding:

Under section 136.2(i)(2), trial courts, generally speaking, are authorized to issue postconviction orders restraining a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from any contact with a percipient witness to the crime who has been harassed by the defendant. It was improper to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i) where the person was not a percipient witness. The broader protective orders under section 136.2 are limited to the time frame during the pendency of the criminal action. It does not apply to postconviction orders.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Beckemeyer (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 461, 465 and fn. 4, 466

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 140–144

Tenth Holding:

The court imposed $180 as the court facilities funding assessment for the five counts. However, at $30 for each count, the assessment should have been $150, not $180.

Authority:

GOV 70373(a)

Sentencing

Case 000529

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in including nonvictims in its postconviction protective order under section 136.2(i)(1).

First Holding:

Section 136.2(i)(1) provides that when a defendant has been convicted of a crime that requires the defendant to register as a sex offender, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not a victim of the crime.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

Second Holding:

The term “victim” under section 136.2 is not limited to only those individuals named in the charge for which the defendant was convicted. A victim may include anyone with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated. Thus, a “victim of the crime” may include a person not named in the count on which the defendant was convicted, so long as that person was a victim of the same crime.

It is possible for a protective order to protect more than one person/victim and the statute does not require that a person be expressly identified in a charging instrument in order to be considered a victim. A protective order is available for one or more persons as long as each person is a ‘victim’ of any one of the specifically enumerated crimes under section 136.2(i)(1) for which the defendant has been convicted.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 647

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 142, 143-144, fn. 4

Third Holding:

Several courts have vacated protective orders where the persons listed in the protective orders either were not present during the incident or did not suffer harm as a result of the offense for which the defendants were convicted.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648–649 [Person A was not present when Pena committed sexual battery against the victim]

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 144 [the defendant’s ex-wife and the other children did not suffer continuous sexual abuse]

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237 [the minor children were present but asleep during incident]

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000526

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At sentencing, the trial court found the defendant, who was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism, was not a suitable candidate for probation and imposed a custodial sentence. As part of that sentence, the court issued an indefinite stay-away order barring the defendant from the specific address of the apartment complex where the victim lived. It was improper to issue a protective order, which must be stricken.

First Holding:

Claims that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal and should be corrected whenever a reviewing court identifies the error.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382

Second Holding:

Section 136.2(a)(1), allows a trial court to issue protective orders during a criminal case. But courts have read that provision to allow protective orders only while the criminal action is pending. In response, the Legislature added subdivision (i) to section 136.2, which allows postconviction protective orders lasting up to 10 years, but only when the defendant is convicted of domestic violence, certain sexual offenses, street terrorism, or crimes requiring sex offender registration.

Outside of those categories, section 136.2 does not give the trial court statutory authority to impose the postconviction protective order. The order here was unauthorized on two independent grounds. First, it was indefinite in duration and not tied to the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The trial court denied probation, so the order was not authorized as a condition of probation. A postjudgment restraining order imposed under these circumstances falls outside the authority granted by section 136.2 and must be stricken. Second, the trial court never made a finding of good cause to believe that the defendant posed an ongoing risk of intimidating or dissuading the vicitm or anyone else at the complex.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Corrales (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 283, 286

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 159

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Third Holding:

A criminal protective order must also rest on a finding of good cause to believe that the defendant is likely to try to intimidate or dissuade a victim or witness. The fact that a victim was harmed or threatened with harm is not enough on its own.

Authority:

Babalola v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 948, 962

Defenses, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000300

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the protective order modified to strike [person x] as a protected person. We reject the defendant’s claim that the trial erred in not sua sponte instruction on the defense of unconsciousness.

First Holding:

Unconsciousness, if not induced by voluntary intoxication, is a complete defense to a criminal charge. For purposes of the defense, unconsciousness need not rise to the level of coma or inability to walk or perform manual movements; it can exist where the subject physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting. The law presumes that a person who appears to be acting in a state of consciousness is conscious. Accordingly, the burden is on a criminal defendant to produce evidence rebutting this presumption of consciousness. If a defendant produces substantial evidence that he or she was unconscious, the trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on the theory; the failure to do so is error. In this case, the defendant did not rebut the presumption of his consciousness, and it was therefore not error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on unconsciousness sua sponte.

Authority:

PEN 26

People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 417

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 804

Second Holding:

Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent, but it is not a defense to a general intent crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime. Reckless evasion of a peace officer is a specific intent crime.

Authority:

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 805

People v. Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899

People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 788

People v. Taylor (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1195, 1203-1206

Third Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury.

Authority:

People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78

Fourth Holding:

A case is not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480

Fifth Holding:

Where a defendant is convicted of certain defined crimes of domestic violence, the trial may issue a protective order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. Such orders are limited to defendants convicted of crimes that qualify as domestic violence and where the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crimes. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not present during or otherwise suffered harm from the crime.

For instance, a protective order covering children who were present but asleep during a domestic violence incident was found to be improper in Lopez. With respect to the issuance of a legally authorized criminal protective order, we imply all findings necessary to support the judgment, and our review is limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support these implied findings.

The record here contains no substantial evidence from which the trial court reasonably could conclude that [person x] was a victim of the crime subject to protection under section 136.2(i)(1).

Authority:

PEN 136.2,(i)(1)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 217

People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, 212 [absent evidence from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that appellant had harmed or attempted to harm two children, the court lacked authority to issue the no-contact protective order as to the children]

Defenses, Sentencing

Case 000076

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The charge for violating a protective order was barred by the statute of limitations. We therefore vacate defendant’s conviction for violating a criminal protective order but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Holding:

The misdemeanor violating a criminal protective order (sec. 166(c)(1)) must be vacated because it is barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations.

Authority:

PEN 166(c)(1)

PEN 802

People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338, 341