People v. Imel CA3

Filed 10/21/22 P. v. Imel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C095531

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21F7284)

v.

BRANDON MARK IMEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Brandon Mark Imel pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury on his girlfriend. The trial court placed defendant on three years of formal probation and ordered him, as a condition of probation, to have no contact with the victim except for visitation as set forth in family court orders. It also allowed the probation officer to prohibit contact. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court’s orally pronounced protective order was inconsistent with a prejudgment protective order issued by the court, creating an

1

unreasonable risk of his erroneous arrest. He further argues the trial court improperly allowed the probation officer to override family court orders. Both parties agree the prejudgment protective order should be modified. We will direct the trial court to modify the protective order to permit contact pursuant to family court orders allowing supervised visits, and to reflect the correct statutory authorization. We also direct the trial court to modify the minute order. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The People filed a complaint on November 18, 2021, charging defendant with inflicting corporal injury on his girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code) and criminal threats (§ 422). In the infliction of corporal injury count, the People further alleged defendant had a prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (f)). On the same day, the trial court issued a prejudgment protective order pursuant to section 136.2. In the protective order, the trial court checked the “no-contact” and “stay- away” provisions in items 12, 13, and 14, prohibiting defendant from making any contact with the victim or coming within 100 yards of her. Item 16, which allows peaceful contact pursuant to family court orders as an exception to the “no-contact” and “stay- away” requirements, was left unchecked. The order stated it takes precedence over any conflicting family court orders, and “[u]nless box a or b in item 16 . . . is checked, contact between [defendant] and [the victim] permitted by a Family . . . court order for child custody or visitation must not conflict with the provisions of this order.” The order was set to expire three years from its issuance. On December 1, 2021, defendant pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal injury and admitted the prior conviction allegation in exchange for the dismissal of the criminal threats count. The trial court placed defendant on three years of formal probation and imposed fees and fines.