People v. Corrales

Filed 3/10/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B297181

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA472326) v.

JUAN F. CORRALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Renee Korn, Judge. Order stricken.

Catherine White, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pitney, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Gregory B. Wagner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant set fire to a palm tree next to a strip mall in Los Angeles. Although charged with two felonies, a jury convicted him of misdemeanor unlawful burning of the property of another in violation of Penal Code section 452, subdivision (d).1 During sentencing, the trial court ordered appellant to stay 100 yards away from the building adjacent to the palm tree. Appellant challenges the stay-away order, arguing the trial court lacked authority to issue it. We agree and strike the order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND At sentencing, the trial court imposed a 180-day term in the county jail, but appellant already had earned 305 days of pretrial custody credit toward his sentence and was to be immediately released. Over objection, the trial court orally issued an order for appellant to stay away from the strip mall: “[H]e should stay away from that location, because everyone at that location who was there that day and saw what he did and went through that obviously would be upset to see him on that property again.” The court continued, “I am going to order you – again, this has no teeth to it, other than telling you not to go to that location, and it would be a violation of the court order if you go to that location. But again, if you don’t follow it, it’s certainly not a violation of probation, it’s a violation of a court order which could mean a new charge against you.” The minute order states, “Defendant is ordered to stay 100 yards away from the perimeter area of 530 E. Washington Boulevard.” The minute order does not impose a limit on the