People v. Totten CA3

Filed 3/24/21 P. v. Totten CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091285

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19F3867)

v.

NATHAN AARON TOTTEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Originally charged with elder abuse and stalking of an elderly woman for whom he had done some yard work, defendant Nathan Aaron Totten pleaded no contest to making a criminal threat against the woman’s son and admitted a strike prior in exchange for a stipulated six-year prison sentence; he also agreed to a Harvey1 waiver for the dismissed counts involving the elderly woman and imposition of no contact orders.

1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

1

On appeal, defendant contends the no contact order is invalid because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose it since defendant did not plead guilty to any charges involving the elderly woman. Because the protective order was a material term of the plea agreement, defendant cannot challenge the term without a certificate of probable cause, which he did not obtain. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2019, defendant was charged in Shasta County case No. 19F03867 with stalking P.G. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a), count 1),2 criminal threats against P.G. (§ 422, count 2), and elder abuse of P.G. (§ 368, subd. (c), count 3). It was further alleged that defendant had a strike prior (§ 1170.12); three on-bail enhancements were also alleged (§ 12022.1). Evidence at the preliminary hearing showed the following.3 In June 2019, P.G., an elderly woman in her eighties, reported to law enforcement that defendant was harassing her and vandalizing her property. P.G. met defendant through her son, R.L., who arranged to have defendant do some work at his mother’s house following a severe storm. After completing the work, defendant started squatting beneath P.G.’s carport. He left his belongings there during the day and slept in the carport at night. P.G. confronted him six or seven times telling him to leave, but he continued to sleep there and leave a backpack or other personal property. Although she warned him that she would dispose of his belongings if he did not leave, defendant continued to squat at P.G.’s residence. P.G. eventually threw away defendant’s backpack.