People v. Hagen CA2/1

Filed 8/31/23 P. v. Hagen CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B323695

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA158173) v.

THOMAS HAROLD HAGEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________

Thomas Harold Hagen appeals from a judgment entered after a court trial at which the trial court found him guilty of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)1 The prosecution’s evidence presented at trial indicated, in pertinent part, that Hagen and the robbery victim were both homeless and acquainted with one another. In April 2022, Hagen approached the van where the victim lived, asked to see the phone she was holding, and said it was his. When she declined, he prevented her from closing the van door, hit her in the face and head, and took items from her hands, including the phone, her money, and her keys. On August 31, 2022, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Hagen on formal probation for three years with terms and conditions, including that Hagen “not harass, bother, molest, annoy, or communicate” with the robbery victim and “stay away from” her. In addition to the stay-away order that was a condition of Hagen’s three-year probation, the court also issued a separate 10-year criminal protective order requiring Hagen to stay away from the victim. Hagen contends, the Attorney General concedes, and we agree that the 10-year criminal protective order was unauthorized in this case and must be stricken for the reasons explained below. DISCUSSION As the parties agree, there is no statute authorizing a 10- year postconviction protective order based on the robbery conviction in this case. Section 136.2, governing criminal protective orders, “authorizes protective orders which ‘are “operative only during the pendency of criminal proceedings and as prejudgment