Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald S. Coen, Judge, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA058814
Patricia A. Andreoni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
Hector Manuel Gutierrez appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated plea of no contest to stalking, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, and two counts of felonious assault. The plea arose from an incident that culminated on March 16, 2007, when defendant grabbed Yadira P. by her hair and dragged her, and her brother who was trying to render assistance, alongside defendant’s car. On July 26, 2007, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of six years eight months. On appeal, he contends that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering a protective order against him. We agree.
At defendant’s April 10, 2007 arraignment, the trial court ordered, “over victims[’] objection,” that defendant have no contact with the victims until the order expired on April 10, 2010. But People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 159–160, holds that a protective order such as the one issued here under Penal Code sections 136.2 and 1203.097 exists to protect victims and witnesses only during the pendency of a criminal proceeding or a period of probation. As the criminal proceeding in this case is no longer pending and probation was not granted, defendant contends and the Attorney General aptly concedes that the protective order should be stricken. We shall order the trial court to do so.
The Attorney General asserts that the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect the $40 security fee imposed at the time of sentencing under Penal Code section 1465.8, and that such fee should also have been imposed as to each count. On remand, the trial court may consider the propriety of such fines. (See People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865–866.)
The judgment is affirmed and the matter is remanded with directions for the trial court to strike the protective order of April 10, 2007.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JACKSON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.