People v. Lepke CA2/4

Filed 10/28/13 P. v. Lepke CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B244820

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA050629) v.

BRADLEY DEAN LEPPKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bernie C. LaForteza, Judge. Affirmed as modified. William L. Heyman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Brendan Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this appeal from a September 14, 2012 order modifying a protective order, defendant Bradley Dean Leppke contends the trial court inadvertently entered the wrong expiration date of October 22, 2020. The Attorney General agrees the correct expiration date is October 22, 2013, and attributes the entry of the wrong expiration date to clerical error. We reject defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct and direct the superior court to modify the September 14, 2012 order to reflect the correct expiration date of October 22, 2013.

BACKGROUND

Because the parties agree the September 14, 2012 order must be modified to reflect the correct expiration date of October 22, 2013, our discussion of the relevant facts will be brief. By plea agreement on November 15, 2010, defendant received a three-year prison sentence for one felony count of stalking his wife. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b).)1 He also agreed to be restrained under a criminal protective order with respect to his wife and children. (§ 646.9, subd. (k).)2 The protective order, which was entered on October 22, 2010, had a three-year term that was to expire on October 22, 2013. After being released from prison, defendant filed a pro. per. motion to terminate or modify the protective order. At the September 14, 2012 hearing on his motion, the prosecutor agreed to a modification that would: (1) remove the children’s names and list only the wife’s name; and (2) allow defendant to have contact with his wife “only for the safe exchange of the children.” The prosecutor prepared and submitted a modified