People v. Martinez CA5

Filed 10/4/22 P. v. Martinez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F084114 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21906428) v.

EDUARDO MARTINEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolfo M. Corona, Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Gezi and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Eduardo Martinez contends on appeal that the trial court erred in including the named victim, M.F., in the criminal protective order that it issued as part of the sentence and disposition in his case. We instruct the trial court to amend the criminal protective order to reflect that it does not apply to M.F. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 16, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4);1 count 1); infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 2); unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 3); receiving stolen property exceeding $950 in value (§ 496, subd. (a); count 4); and dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2); count 5). It was further alleged that defendant had suffered one prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” Law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). On August 17, 2021, defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges in the complaint and denied the prior strike conviction allegation. On January 20, 2022, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty to count 2 and entered a plea of no contest for a stipulated two-year prison sentence, to run concurrent to his sentence on a parole violation in a separate case. In consideration of defendant’s no contest plea to count 2, the prosecution dismissed counts 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the prior strike conviction allegation. On February 28, 2022, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant on count 2 to the low term of two years in state prison. On March 25, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.