Tag Archives: Protective orders

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

Sentencing

Case 000058

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The fines and fees not mentioned in the trial court’s oral imposition of sentence are improper and must be stricken.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

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

[Cf.] People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 768

Second Holding:

When a trial court does not orally impose discretionary restitution and parole revocation fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 and the prosecution does not object, as here, the prosecution forfeits any objection on appeal and the fines or fees must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302–303

Third Holding:

When a defendant has been convicted of certain listed offenses, including any crime that requires sex offender registration pursuant to section 290(c) at the time of sentencing the trial court shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. It was error to include Jane Doe in the protective order because she was not a victim of the crime, and even as a witness there was no indication that the defendant had made threats toward her within the meaning of section 136.2(i)(2).

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

PEN 136.2(i)(2)

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 143 [The amendment to section 136.2(i)(1) reflects that the Legislature intended that protective orders should only be available for any person who is a victim of any one of the specifically enumerated crimes under section 136.2(i)(1) for which the defendant has been convicted]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant should have objected to the protective order in trial court, thus forfeiting the issue, but we will nonetheless consider his argument to the extent that it raises a question of law.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

We review the trial court’s result, not its rationale.

Authority:

People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976