People v. Meraz CA3

Filed 12/13/13 P. v. Meraz CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Glenn) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073293

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12NCR09460)

v.

ARTEMIO HERNANDEZ MERAZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Artemio Hernandez Meraz pled guilty to stalking with a prior stalking conviction. In exchange, eight related counts and a companion case were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to prison for five years. The trial court imposed mandatory sex offender registration pursuant to Penal Code section 290. (Pen. Code,1 § 290, subd. (b).)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

The trial court also issued a lifetime criminal protective order for the victim and her children. Defendant contends, and the People concede, sex offender registration is not mandatory because the stalking offense is not one of the triggering offenses in section 290, subdivision (c). The parties agree that the trial court has discretion to order registration following a conviction of that offense (§ 646.9, subd. (d)), “if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.” (§ 290.006.) The parties further agree that a discretionary registration order would violate the plea agreement, and that defendant must be offered the chance to withdraw his plea should the trial court find discretionary registration appropriate. Defendant contends, and the People concede, the trial court’s lifetime protective order is unauthorized by statute or the court’s inherent authority. The parties agree that, on remand, the trial court should exercise its discretion as to the length of any protective order. We remand. FACTS Victim E. B. began dating defendant in April 2011, and they commenced a sexual relationship that lasted until September 2011. In July 2012, E. B. moved to Orland. Defendant occasionally appeared at her residence, and she informed him that she wanted only to be friends. Defendant’s behavior became increasingly erratic and aggressive. He would cause disturbances outside E. B.’s residence until she would relent and allow him inside. On two occasions, defendant told E. B. that he wanted to have sexual intercourse. When she tired of arguing with him, she acquiesced to intercourse and digital penetration of her vagina. On August 15, 2012, defendant appeared at E. B.’s residence, claimed to be suicidal, and was allowed inside. After E. B. refused defendant’s demands for