Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

The People v. Brian Allen Platt

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)


February 22, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
BRIAN ALLEN PLATT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

(Super. Ct. No. 08F2370)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease, J.

P. v. Platt

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Brian Allen Platt entered a negotiated guilty plea to attempting to burn a structure (Pen. Code, § 455) after officers found the interior of his former girlfriend's home soaked in gasoline.*fn1 The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison, and imposed other orders.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court lacked the authority to impose an order prohibiting contact between defendant and the victim. The People concede the error and we agree.

Section 136.2 authorizes the imposition of no-contact orders in criminal cases in general.*fn2 In People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153 (Stone), however, the court found a three-year restraining order "transcended the authorization of section 136.2" because it was not limited to the pendency of the criminal proceeding or imposed as a probation condition. (Id. at p. 160.) Relying on Stone, defendant asserts the no-contact order imposed here must be stricken as unauthorized under section 136.2 because it was not limited to the pendency of the criminal proceedings and was not imposed as a probation condition.*fn3 No-contact orders may also be authorized in connection with certain convictions and victims not applicable here. (See e.g., §§ 1203.1, subd. (i)(2), 1202.05.)

Defendant correctly states that the court cannot extend no-contact orders issued pursuant to section 136.2 beyond the duration of the criminal proceedings. Section 136.2 authorizes protective restraining orders when the trial court has good cause belief that harm, intimidation, or dissuasion is likely to occur to a victim or a witness. (§ 136.2, subd. (a).) By its very nature, this type of protective order applies only during the pendency of a criminal proceeding. (People v. Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113, 118; Stone, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at pp. 159-160.) The purpose of orders under section 136.2 "'is to protect victims and witnesses'" during criminal proceedings so they can participate without "'fear of reprisal.'" (Selga, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 118.)

Of course, if any issues of contact arise, the victim may seek a restraining order.

DISPOSITION

The no-contact order is stricken from the judgment. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the modification, and to send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J. MAURO , J.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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