Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Jonathan Nelce Lancaster

February 16, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JONATHAN NELCE LANCASTER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



Super. Ct. No. 72-005780

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz ,j.

P. v. Lancaster CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

A jury convicted defendant Jonathan Nelce Lancaster of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)),*fn1 perjury by declaration (§ 118), and seven counts of disobeying a court order, misdemeanors (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). The jury acquitted defendant of criminal threats (§ 422), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and three other counts of disobeying a court order. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on making annoying telephone calls (§ 653m, subd. (b)), making a false report of a criminal offense (§ 148.5, subd. (a)), and two other counts of disobeying a court order.

Defendant was sentenced in November 2009. The court imposed an aggregate state prison sentence of four years, suspended execution, and granted probation for a term of five years subject to certain terms and conditions including 365 days in jail.

Defendant appeals. He contends (1) the "no contact" condition of probation requires modification to include a "knowledge" requirement and (2) the condition that he "seek and maintain gainful employment" exceeded the court's statutory authority. We agree in part with his first contention and reject the second contention.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Linda and Mark Vierra live next door to defendant in Olympic Valley. Mark bought a snow removal business in 1989. Defendant agreed that Mark could park a snow blower in defendant's driveway in exchange for free snow removal. An argument between Mark and defendant over politics in 2006 led to the following events. Mark stopped parking his snowplow in defendant's driveway but continued plowing the driveway until April 30, 2007. After a bad snowstorm in December 2007, defendant called Mark on his cell phone and said he would call the sheriff if Mark did not plow defendant's driveway. Defendant called the sheriff when Mark did not plow the driveway and the sheriff's department assigned a deputy to intervene in the dispute to no avail.

Defendant complained to the county that the Vierras did not have a license for the snow removal business. The Vierras thereafter got a business license. The Vierras reported defendant driving back and forth in front of their house, staring, and taking a picture of a snow blower and of Linda. The Vierras were granted a temporary restraining order. Linda then started taking notes about defendant's actions. She did so because a law enforcement officer suggested it.

In April and May 2008, defendant's actions of harassing and annoying the Vierras constituted the seven counts of disobeying a court order (the restraining order). Defendant's actions of harassing and threatening the Vierras from January 2008 to March 2009 constituted stalking.

Defendant submitted a declaration falsely stating that on March 10, 2009, Linda had thrown a full can of an energy drink and hit defendant in the back.

DISCUSSION

I. Conditions of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.