People v. Salinas CA5

Filed 3/25/24 P. v. Salinas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F086030 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF353719) v.

PEDRO SALINAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Antonio A. Reyes, Judge. Audrey R. Chavez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue and Darren K. Indermill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Pedro Salinas was resentenced on March 30, 2023, and now appeals the criminal protective order issued by the trial court under Penal Code section 136.2.1 Defendant argues that the trial court lacked authority to issue: (1) a protective order pursuant to section 136.2, subdivision (a), which only provides for pretrial protective orders; (2) a posttrial protective order under section 136.2, subdivision (i) because the court failed to make the necessary factual findings; and (3) a protective order as to I.C. because the jury acquitted defendant of committing a crime against her. The People concede that the protective order must be modified to exclude I.C. from its provisions, but argue that section 136.2, subdivision (i) authorized the protective order as to defendant’s other two victims and that defendant forfeited his right appeal the trial court’s failure to make express findings even if required. Defendant requests that we adopt the People’s proposed resolution to modify the protective order to exclude I.C. and agrees that his remaining arguments are moot. We accept the parties’ agreement and will order the trial court to modify the protective order it issued in this case to remove I.C. from its terms. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 12, 2019, after a four-day trial, a jury convicted defendant of forcible lewd acts upon a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 2), lewd acts upon a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 1, 3–6, 8, 14–15)2 aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age by forcible sodomy (§ 269, subd. (a)(3); count 9), forcible sodomy of a child 14 years of age or older (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(C); counts 10, 11), and forcible sexual penetration of a child 14 years of age or older (§ 289,