People v. Rounds CA5

Filed 12/29/14 P. v. Rounds CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F067524 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1448368) v.

RICKEY MAURICE ROUNDS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Linda A. McFadden, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.

INTRODUCTION Following a conviction for assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense, a no-contact order was issued by the trial court forbidding defendant Rickey Maurice Rounds from contacting the victim of his crime. On appeal, defendant contends the court did not have authority to make such an order. We will direct the trial court to modify its order to comply with the applicable statutory authority. BRIEF PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pursuant to a criminal complaint filed August 30, 2012, on or about January 8, 2012, defendant committed a lewd and lascivious act upon his girlfriend’s daughter. The victim, referred to as Jane Doe, was under the age of 14. (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a).) The complaint further alleged defendant had committed a prior serious felony and had served a prior prison term. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 667.5, subd. (b).) At a hearing held April 23, 2013, defendant agreed to enter a no contest plea to a violation of section 220, subdivision (a)(1).2 The prior prison term allegation was stricken,3 and the court indicated it would impose the mitigated term of two years at the time of sentencing. Thereafter, on June 20, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to a term of two years in state prison. It also issued a no-contact order that is the subject of this appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court did not have valid statutory authority for issuing its no-contact order because section “1202.01” does not exist. Further, he contends no other statute provides the relevant authority for the court’s order. Moreover, defendant