People v. Mount CA3

Filed 8/23/24 P. v. Mount CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099429

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 22CS0713 & 23F4748) v.

GEORGE KENNETH MOUNT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant George Kenneth Mount pled guilty to one count of general burglary and the trial court sentenced him to four years in prison. The trial court also issued a criminal protective order on behalf of one of the victims, R.R.,1 and an additional person, A.R., pursuant to Penal Code2 section 136.2, subdivision (i). On appeal, defendant

1 To protect their privacy, we refer to the victims and witnesses by their initials. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(a)(1), (b)(10), (11).) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

argues the criminal protective order was unauthorized and should be stricken. The People agree issuance of the criminal protective order was unauthorized but contend we should remand the matter for the trial court to determine whether to issue a nonstatutory protective order. We will strike the criminal protective order and otherwise affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND3 Early one morning, defendant and his accomplice broke into H.G.’s barn and loaded a motorcycle and a quad runner onto a trailer and other items into the bed of his truck. H.G. and R.R. saw defendant drive away with their belongings. Defendant pled no contest to general burglary (§ 459) and agreed to a maximum term of six years in prison. Defendant admitted he was on postrelease community supervision in Shasta County Superior Court case No. 22CS-00713 when he committed the burglary and had a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12). At sentencing, the People requested a criminal protective order. The prosecutor said the victims provided “some information I didn’t know, that [defendant] had moved to, they had been doing some work for their company, (inaudible) the individual that was knowledgeable to them as victims and they are concerned, they would be asking for a no contact order from him. I don’t have a [criminal protective order] to fill out. But, as to that, they indicated they gave their statement to Probation.” The probation department summarized its conversation with R.R. in a memorandum to the trial court. R.R. and H.G. lived at the residence that defendant burglarized. R.R. did not know if defendant and his accomplice were armed, so she was afraid for her life when she saw them breaking into the barn. After the burglary, she was scared defendant would retaliate; she felt uneasy in her home. When a neighbor told R.R.