Opinion
F073417
03-28-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOUGLAS MITCHELL ALAMEDA, Defendant and Appellant.
Trenton C. Packer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Craig S. Meyers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF48381)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. James A. Boscoe, Judge. Trenton C. Packer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Craig S. Meyers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Hill, P.J., Poochigian, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
On December 4, 2015, a jury convicted defendant Douglas Mitchell Alameda of one count of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). On January 22, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for four years and, among other things, ordered him to have no contact with the victim for 10 years pursuant to section 136.2. Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the court lacked authority to issue the no-contact order. This contention has merit. We therefore strike the no-contact order but, in all other respects, affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
DISCUSSION
We dispense with a summary of facts underlying defendant's offense as they are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal. --------
Defendant contends the trial court erred when it issued the no-contact order under section 136.2 because the court lacked authority to impose it. (People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382-385 [section 136.2 protective order unauthorized where order extended beyond pendency of criminal proceedings]; People v. Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113, 118-120.) The People concede the order was unauthorized and agree it should be stricken. Our independent research confirms this conclusion.
DISPOSITION
The no-contact order is stricken. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.