People v. Orlandella CA5

Filed 9/12/23 P. v. Orlandella 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085612 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CRST000016) v.

VITO PATRICK ORLANDELLA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jon N. Kapetan, Judge. Sarah A. Stockwell for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Kathryn L. Althizer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appellant Vito Patrick Orlandella challenges the trial court’s decision denying his petition to end his obligation to register annually as a sex offender, and further concluding he could not file another such petition for five years. Appellant believes the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring him to continue to register. In their brief, the People agree reversal is required due to the lack of sufficient evidence. We agree as well. BACKGROUND In 1984, appellant was charged with and later found guilty by a jury of committing 12 separate acts of lewd and lascivious conduct (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)) involving his daughter between January 1, 1983, and June 30, 1984.2 Appellant was released from prison in 1991, completed a three-year parole period without committing any new violations, and has not been convicted of any other offenses since that time. Both while in prison and when on parole, appellant participated in and completed counseling programs. Once released from prison, appellant was able to return to his employment as an aircraft mechanic and air tanker pilot. Since retiring from that job in 2020, appellant has flown commercially for a major air freight operator. This new job required appellant to pass a “Twelve-Five Standard Security Check.” In 1994, appellant’s daughter, who was the victim in his case, approached appellant expressing a desire to “return to a family relationship.” This resulted in appellant also reestablishing a relationship with his other two children. During all of this