Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, No. VCF221676, Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Dawson, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.
Appellant, Jose Jaime Loza, pled no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187) and admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)), a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and a personal use of a knife enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
On appeal, Loza contends the court erred when it imposed a no-contact order. We agree and will modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, we will affirm.
FACTS
On April 12, 2009, R.H. was dancing at a party in Visalia when another man bumped into him and punched him in the face. Several other subjects soon joined the attack and caused R.H. to fall down. E.R. and J.S. attempted to help R.H. and were both assaulted. During the altercation, Loza stabbed the three men with a knife.
Loza was arrested on May 16, 2009.
On May 6, 2010, the court sentenced Loza to a stipulated term of 21 years, a 7-year term for Loza’s attempted murder conviction, a 10-year term for the gang enhancement, a 1-year term for the arming enhancement, and a 3-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court also ordered Loza not to contact the victims.
DISCUSSION
Loza contends the court’s order prohibiting him from contacting the victims was unauthorized because the court sentenced him to prison. Respondent concedes and we agree.
The trial court may issue criminal protective orders pursuant to section 136.2 and domestic violence protective orders pursuant to section 1203.097, including protective orders as a condition of probation. However, the latter two situations are inapplicable here and section 136.2 does not authorize the issuance of a protective order against a defendant who has been sentenced to prison. (People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382-383.) Nor does the court’s inherent authority to issue appropriate protective orders to protect trial participants authorize it to issue a protective order against a defendant who has been sentenced to prison. (Id. at p. 384.) Accordingly, we agree with the parties that the court’s no-contact order here was unauthorized because the court sentenced Loza to prison.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to strike the order prohibiting Loza from contacting the victims. Additionally, we note that section 1 of Loza’s abstract of judgment erroneously indentifies the Penal Code sections Loza violated as sections “554/187(a)” instead of sections “664/187(a)[.]” The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion and which corrects the above typographical error and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.