People v. Simpson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KELVIN LEE SIMPSON, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Feb 14, 2008

No. A116340 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KELVIN LEE SIMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. A116340 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division February 14, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 050606624

STEVENS, J.^*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the California Constitution.

Kelvin Simpson challenges the validity of an alleged stay-away order in effect while he serves a state prison sentence. Because there is no evidence of such an order in the record, we affirm the judgment.

Background

On July 5, 2006, Simpson pled no contest to a charge of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and admitted a prior conviction for the same offense. The court sentenced him to four years in state prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed him on three years’ formal probation. Two of the conditions of probation were that he serve a year in jail and have no contact with the victim. The stay-away order was issued pursuant to Penal Code sections 136.2 and 1203.097, subdivision (a)(2).

On November 3, 2006, Simpson admitted violating the conditions of his probation by having 17 telephonic contacts with the victim while he was in jail. The court revoked probation and imposed the four-year prison sentence.

Discussion

The sole argument Simpson raises on appeal is that the trial court had no authority to prohibit Simpson from contacting the victim while he was in state prison. The People contend the court never issued such an order. Simpson has not filed a reply brief disputing the People’s contention. The only stay-away orders in the appellate record are an April 14, 2006 protective order pending trial and the superseding July 5, 2006 order imposed as a condition of probation. Like all probation conditions, the July order automatically terminated when Simpson’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison. (See People v. Lewis (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1949, 1955; see also People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 158-159 [stay-away order issued pursuant to Pen. Code, § 136.2 expires at the conclusion of the trial court criminal proceeding].) Therefore, Simpson’s appellate argument lacks a factual foundation.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur. JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.