People v. Ross CA4/1

Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Ross CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081673

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE406629)

MARIEESE ANTOINE ROSS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frank L. Birchak, Judge. Remanded with directions and affirmed in all other respects. Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Vincent LaPietra and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Marieese Antoine Ross appeals from the criminal protective order entered against him, claiming one of its terms is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence. Ross requests we correct the error or alternatively remand for the limited purpose of correcting it. The Attorney General concedes the ambiguity but claims it should be redressed on limited remand. We find this matter appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847) and remand solely to clarify whether term number 10 of the criminal protective order applies to Ross. We agree with the parties that there is an ambiguity between the criminal protective order, issued on Judicial Council Form CR-160, and the trial court’s oral pronouncement at Ross’ sentencing. Term numbers 7 through 10 presumptively apply. However, term number 10, which restricts a defendant from obtaining “the addresses or locations of protected persons or their family members,” does not apply if a checkbox is marked showing the court finds “good cause” not to impose it.