People v. Oliveros CA6

Filed 9/13/21 P. v. Oliveros CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H048488 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. B1904111)

v.

HECTOR VELAZQUEZ OLIVEROS,

Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Hector Velazquez Oliveros pleaded no contest to forcible rape and stalking. The trial court imposed an aggregate term of four years four months in state prison. The court also issued a ten-year protective order prohibiting Oliveros from having any contact with the victim and her immediate family members. Oliveros contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue a protective order prohibiting contact with the immediate family members of the victim. For the reasons below, we conclude this claim is without merit. We will affirm the order issuing the restraining order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background The prosecution charged Oliveros with seven counts: count 1—assault with intent commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (b))1; count 2—assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); counts 3, 4, and 5—forcible rape (§ 261,

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

subd. (a)(2)); count 6—stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)); and count 7—petty theft (§ 488). As part of a plea agreement, Oliveros pleaded no contest to count 5 (forcible rape) and count 6 (stalking). Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of four years four months in state prison, composed of three years for count 5 and a consecutive term of 16 months for count 6. The trial court also issued a ten-year restraining order under section 136.2 and section 646.9, subdivision (k). The plea agreement included imposition of a restraining order prohibiting contact with the victim, but the parties at the plea hearing made no mention of the order covering any other members of the victim’s family. At sentencing, when the court ruled the protective order would prohibit contact with the victim’s immediate family members in addition to the victim herself, defense counsel objected to the inclusion of the family members. The trial court found the statutory basis for the inclusion of immediate family members was satisfied: “The Court does find the conduct that has been referenced to the Court would indicate that the statutory basis by which to include immediate family members are appropriate, under these circumstances, for the ten-year period.” Accordingly, the court overruled the objection and imposed the protective order. B. Facts of the Offenses2 In September 2019, Jane Doe reported to the police that Oliveros had sexually assaulted her and was continuously stalking her. Doe was married with two daughters at the time. Doe reported that she had met Oliveros four years prior and began a romantic affair that included consensual sex. Doe ended the relationship in September 2018, but Oliveros wanted to continue it. On one occasion, he went to her residence uninvited to discuss continuing the relationship. When Doe stated she wanted to end the relationship,