People v. Valadez CA5

Filed 6/25/24 P. v. Valadez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F086655 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF180369A) v.

CESAR RODRIGUEZ VALADEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Laura Vavakin, 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, Michael A. Canzoneri and Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Cesar Rodriguez Valadez (defendant) was sentenced on June 22, 2023, and now appeals the criminal protective order issued at sentencing by the trial court under Penal Code section 136.2.1 Defendant argues that the court lacked authority to leave in place (or reimpose) a protective order previously issued pursuant to section 136.2, subdivision (a), which does not authorize posttrial protective orders. The People concede that the protective order pursuant to section 136.2 must be stricken, but argue the court had authority to impose the restriction of a stay away order as a condition of probation. We reject the People’s concession and affirm the protective order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The District Attorney of Kern County filed an information on November 8, 2022, charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1); count 2). The trial court had issued a three-year protective order pursuant to section 136.2 on October 24, 2022. The trial court granted the prosecutor’s oral motion to reduce both charges to misdemeanors on December 20, 2022, and defendant pleaded not guilty. After the jury convicted defendant of both counts on June 22, 2023, the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on a one-year term of probation, and ordered him to pay restitution and other fines. In addition, the court ordered defendant to stay 500 yards away from his victims as a condition of probation and left the protective order imposed on October 24, 2022, in place. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on July 31, 2023.