People v. Ward CA1/5

Filed 5/3/16 P. v. Ward CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144489 v. ANDREW J. WARD, (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. 222926) Defendant and Appellant.

Andrew J. Ward was convicted of violating a pretrial emergency domestic violence protective order. At sentencing, the court imposed a postjudgment criminal protective order under the authority of Penal Code section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) (section 136.2(i)(1)).1 Ward challenges the order, contending that he was not convicted of a domestic violence offense as required by the statute. We affirm, concluding the court properly relied on the statute’s definition of domestic violence at the time of sentencing and reasonably found that Ward’s offense was a crime involving domestic violence as so defined. I. BACKGROUND Maria T. is Ward’s ex-girlfriend. Ward and Maria began a dating relationship in about November 2013, and Ward stayed with Maria in her apartment and shared her cell phone from about December 2013 to February 2014. Their relationship soured, and they engaged in many fights, breakups, and reunions. After one confrontation, Ward decided

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

to end the relationship and stayed elsewhere. In early March, he told Maria he wanted to return to collect his belongings. On March 6, 2014, he entered the apartment while Maria was in the shower. When she encountered him, they argued and struggled over Maria’s cellphone. Ward grabbed and shook Maria, took the phone, and left the apartment. He was arrested soon thereafter and taken to the hospital after he had what appeared to be a seizure. While Ward was in the hospital, police served him with an emergency protective order that prohibited him from contacting Maria. After Ward was booked into jail, he called Maria twice during the afternoon of March 6, 2014. During the calls, which were recorded by the jail, he asked Maria to make phone calls for him and to drop the charges against him. Ward was charged by first amended information with the felony first degree residential robbery and burglary of Maria’s home (§§ 211, 459); misdemeanor battery and corporal injury on Maria, a cohabitant (§§ 243, subd. (e)(1), 273.5, subd. (a)); misdemeanor violations of a domestic relations court order on March 6 and May 2 (§ 273.6, subd. (a)); misdemeanor aggravated trespass of Maria’s home (§ 602.5, subd. (b)); and misdemeanor battery on a different woman (§ 242). The charge relating to a May 2 violation of a court order was dismissed by the prosecution before trial. A jury found Ward guilty of disobeying a domestic relations court order on March 6 and not guilty of all remaining charges. On March 3, 2015, at the prosecution’s request, the court issued a criminal protective order that required Ward to stay away from Maria and her home and barred him from possessing firearms during the order’s five-year term. The court sentenced Ward to one year in county jail, with one-half time credits pursuant to section 4019 and 239 days of credit for time served, leaving no additional time to be served. II. DISCUSSION Ward argues that the court lacked the legal authority to issue the postjudgment protective order in this case. We disagree and affirm the order. The order was issued on Judicial Council Forms, form CR-160, which is entitled, “Criminal Protective Order—Domestic Violence.” The court checked two boxes on the