People v. Wessling CA3

Filed 6/5/25 P. v. Wessling CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C101314

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF2400368)

RYAN MICHAEL WESSLING,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ryan Michael Wessling pleaded no contest to sexual penetration of a minor, false imprisonment by violence, violation of a protective order, and destruction of evidence. He also admitted a strike allegation attached to the sexual penetration count. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated prison term of three years four months and issued a 10-year protective order under Penal Code section 136.2, subdivision (i) that includes no-contact and no-abuse provisions.1 Defendant now contends (1) the no-contact provision is unconstitutionally overbroad and also amounts to an unlawful prior restraint on his freedom of expression, and (2) the no-abuse provision is not authorized by section 136.2, subdivision (i). We will strike a portion of the no-contact provision and otherwise affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND Yuba County Sheriff’s Department deputies responded to a motel in Linda and spoke with M.L., a 17-year-old girl, who said she was staying there with defendant, a 33-year-old man. M.L. initially claimed that defendant was her uncle, but later admitted they were in a relationship. M.L. told the deputies defendant “threw her around,” took her phone, and then locked her in the bathroom. Deputies found various sex toys in the room. Following defendant’s arrest, he admitted having sex with M.L. using the sex toys. At defendant’s arraignment, the trial court issued a no-contact order, which defendant violated shortly thereafter by talking to M.L. on the phone. Defendant also repeatedly contacted friends and family members asking them to destroy evidence, including by erasing the contents of his cell phone. Defendant had been previously convicted of making a criminal threat, a strike offense within the meaning of the three strikes law. Defendant pleaded no contest to sexual penetration of a minor, false imprisonment by violence, violation of a protective order, and destruction of evidence; he also admitted the prior strike attached to the sexual penetration count. At sentencing, in addition to imposing the stipulated three-year four-month prison term, the trial court issued the protective order at issue in this appeal. The challenged protective order contains the following no-contact provision: “Defendant must not contact [M.L.], directly or indirectly, by any means, including by telephone, mail, email, or other electronic means, or through a third party. Contact through an attorney under reasonable restrictions set by the court does not violate this order.” At the sentencing hearing, while explaining that provision to defendant, the trial court added, “don’t post anything on social media or write any letters to the editor or comment about this case or disseminate it into the public, because that’s indirect contact in this matter.” The protective order also contains a no-abuse provision that provides in relevant part: “Defendant must not harass, strike, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), hit,