People v. Trost CA4/1

Filed 7/14/25 P. v. Trost CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085447

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. INF2200324)

TREVOR KARSTEN TROST,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Frederick Paul Dickerson, III, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Trevor Karsten Trost challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction of violating a protective order. Resolving this matter by

memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm. I. Trost and Jane Doe were together approximately 25 years, during which they had one child. Their relationship ended in 2020, but they continued living together in 2021 and 2022. In August 2021, after Jane reported physical abuse to the police earlier that year, a court issued a three-year protective order under Penal Code section 136.2. The protective order prohibited Trost from having any negative contact with Jane through the listed August 2024 expiration date. It stated the protective order remained valid “as long as the court has jurisdiction over the case” but not after “imposition of” a jail or prison commitment. Six months later, on February 16, 2022, Trost charged at Jane while she was in her bedroom. Trost then, among other things, punched and choked Jane. After Trost left the house, Jane called the police. The responding officers collected evidence and interviewed Jane. At trial, the jury watched footage from the day of the incident captured by a responding officer’s body worn camera. As seen in the video, Jane told the officer about a no negative contact protective order. Though Jane admitted she did not “know if it’s still in place,” the officer responded, “We’ll check on that.” Jane explained Trost was “being charged with domestic violence” and was due to appear in court on those charges the next week. She confirmed, on that day, “there[ was] a pending case against him.” Yet at other points in the interview Jane denied Trost “had a history of domestic violence” or had ever assaulted her before.