People v. Stephens CA2/5

Filed 3/20/24 P. v. Stephens CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B328643

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA117871) v.

THRIASHAUN STEPHENS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel J. Lowenthal, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Richard Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Stephanie Santoro, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Thriashaun Stephens (defendant) was placed on probation after pleading guilty to robbing K.S. Later, the trial court found he violated the terms of his probation by trying to smother his girlfriend, J.N., with a pillow. For the violation, the court ordered probation terminated and sentenced defendant to three years in prison on the robbery conviction. Also before the trial court during the probation violation hearing was a separate alleged misdemeanor domestic violence charge involving the victim of defendant’s earlier robbery conviction, K.S. The prosecution indicated it would agree to dismiss the misdemeanor domestic violence charge if defendant agreed to a ten-year criminal protective order restraining him from having any contact with K.S. Defendant agreed, and the trial court dismissed the misdemeanor domestic violence charge. Relying on Penal Code section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1),1 the trial court issued criminal protective orders on January 26, 2023, that restrain defendant from having any contact with both J.N. and K.S. for ten years. Defendant noticed an appeal from the judgment entered as the result of his probation violation. His appointed attorney, Richard Lennon, initially filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and declared he could find no arguable issues to raise on appeal. This court thereafter undertook an independent view of the record and ordered Mr. Lennon to file a supplemental opening brief addressing a single issue, namely, “whether the January 26, 2023, protective orders issued by the trial court are authorized by Penal Code section