People v. Escobar CA4/3

Filed 9/11/20 P. v. Escobar CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G057754

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17CF0051)

JOSE MANUEL ESCOBAR, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanded with directions. Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Following a jury trial, defendant Jose Manuel Escobar was convicted of four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).)1 The jury also found as to each count that defendant committed a sexual offense against more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e).) The court imposed a prison sentence of 80 years to life.2 At sentencing, the court orally ordered defendant not to not harass, intimidate, or threaten the victims or their families pursuant to section 1203.1, and the court prohibited prison visitation between defendant and the victims under section 1202.05. Defendant raises two issues on appeal concerning these orders. First, defendant argues and the Attorney General agrees the protective order under section 1203.1 was unauthorized because that statute applies only when a defendant is placed on probation and defendant was not granted probation. Second, defendant contends and the Attorney General agrees the no-visitation order must be modified to specify it applies only to Jane Doe No. 1, who is still a minor. For reasons we explain below, we strike the protective order and remand for the trial court to consider whether to impose a no-harassment order under section 1201.3, subdivision (a), or a no-contact order under section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1). We also direct the trial court to modify the no-visitation order to specify its application only to Jane Doe. No. 1 until she turns 18 years old. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.