People v. Casey CA3

Filed 5/26/23 P. v. Casey CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096175

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-177931)

v.

MICHAEL PATRICK CASEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

After defendant Michael Patrick Casey pled no contest to several offenses, including stalking the mother of his child while he was subject to a temporary restraining order, the trial court placed him on formal probation for four years, with a probation condition that, subject to a few exceptions, excluded defendant from the City of Roseville, where the mother of his child lives. On appeal, defendant contends the Roseville exclusion infringes his right to intrastate travel. We agree with the People that this claim is forfeited on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND The following summary of facts is based on the preliminary hearing transcript, which defendant stipulated provided a factual basis for his guilty plea. In the fall of 2020, D.C. obtained a domestic violence restraining order against defendant that prohibited him from contacting her or coming within 100 yards of her, except during custody exchanges of their son. Nearly every day thereafter, defendant texted and called D.C. numerous times professing his love for her and asking why she was “doing this.” One day, D.C. saw defendant sitting in his car less than half a block from her home. D.C. also learned defendant was seen around her workplace. Frightened, D.C. contacted the police. Days later, defendant wrote in a text message to D.C. that she hurt him by obtaining the restraining order, and that he heard police banging at his door. In December 2020, D.C. heard a noise in her backyard. She ran to her front yard and saw defendant’s car parked there, within 100 yards of her home. She saw defendant run from behind her fence to his car. In February 2021, during an exchange of their son, defendant jumped into the front passenger seat of D.C.’s car and refused to leave. Later that month, as D.C. was leaving her job at the end of the workday, she saw defendant standing in an elevator she was about to use. When she eventually got to her car, she saw that her front tire had been “popped.” Data on a tracking device that officers found in defendant’s car in February 2021, showed that on multiple occasions, defendant drove from his home to D.C.’s office, to their son’s school, and then to D.C.’s home in Roseville. In January 2022, defendant pled no contest to several offenses, including felony stalking while being the subject of a temporary restraining order (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), in exchange for dismissal of a charge of first degree residential burglary and placement on formal probation. At that plea hearing, the parties and the trial court