People v. Valle

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FELIPE RAMIREZ VALLE, Defendant…

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

Date published: Aug 27, 2009

No. A121512 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FELIPE RAMIREZ VALLE, Defendant and Appellant. A121512 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division August 27, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-507922

THE COURT:

The opinion filed on July 31, 2009, is modified as follows:

Insert a footnote on page 10, at the end of the first sentence:

“On petition for rehearing, appellant contends that this condition of probation was vacated by the court when the conditions were modified on July 13, 2007, to reinstate a protective order for Jane Doe, and to impose the no contact condition. Appellant made no such contention at the revocation hearing, although evidence of the ‘no threats’ condition was adduced by the prosecution. A review of the record also shows that this contention is incorrect. The Minute Order issued on July 13, 2007, not only reflects reinstatement of the ‘no contact’ condition, but also confirms that ‘All other terms and conditions remain in full force and effect.’ ”

Renumber all subsequent footnotes.

This modification does not change the judgment.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.