People v. Brito CA4/1

Filed 9/29/23 P. v. Brito CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081142

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD284133 & SCN434047) JASON ARTURO BRITO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Saba Sheibani, Judge. Affirmed with instructions. Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION Jason Arturo Brito pleaded guilty to one count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon his fiancée resulting in a traumatic condition. On January 16, 2020, the trial court placed him on formal probation for three years and imposed a 10-year criminal protective order (CPO) under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (j), which restrained Brito from contacting or

harassing his fiancée (hereafter, the 2020 CPO).1 Subsequently, Brito violated the conditions of his probation and pleaded guilty to a hit-and-run in an incident unrelated to his corporal injury case. On September 26, 2022, the court revoked probation, sentenced Brito to prison for both crimes, and imposed a “new” CPO (hereafter, the 2022 CPO) that was identical to the 2020 CPO with one exception—the court marked a checkbox on the CPO form indicating it was imposing the 2022 CPO under section 1203.097. That statute requires a court to impose a CPO when it places a defendant on probation for a domestic violence offense. Brito appeals the 2022 CPO and claims it is statutorily unauthorized because the trial court sentenced him to prison—rather than placing him on probation—when it issued the 2022 CPO. The People contend the 2022 CPO was not a “new” CPO at all. According to the People, the trial court merely reissued the existing 2020 CPO and marked the wrong checkbox specifying the statutory basis for the reissued CPO. We agree with the People. Therefore, we affirm the CPO and instruct the trial court to correct the clerical error by marking the checkbox on the CPO form identifying the accurate statutory basis for the CPO.