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. Daron Lacleatus Barnes

February 23, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
DARON LACLEATUS BARNES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 09F08646)

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

P. v. Barnes

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Daron Lacleatus Barnes pled no contest to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than he. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c).)*fn1 In exchange, a second count of that offense was dismissed. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on conditions including 120 days of incarceration. The prosecutor served upon defendant a "Protective Order in Criminal Proceedings (CLETS)," signed by the trial court, which barred him from contact with the complaining witness and her family.

On appeal, defendant contends the protective order must be stricken because the trial court lacked authority to impose an order barring him from contact with the complaining witness and her family. We shall affirm the judgment.

FACTS*fn2

In September 2009 the father of the complaining witness learned that defendant, then aged 20, had impregnated his daughter, then aged 16. The sexual relationship began when defendant was aged 18 and the complaining witness was aged 15 or 16. The duo had sexual intercourse approximately 10 to 15 times in 2008 and ended their relationship in April 2009. The relationship produced two pregnancies that were terminated by abortion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the no-contact order must be stricken because the trial court lacked authority to impose a criminal protective order barring him from contact with the complaining witness and her family. We disagree.

Background

During the probation hearing, the prosecutor stated that she had "a written no contact order to serve" upon defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing, she noted for the record that she had personally served the "no contact order."

The "no contact order" consisted of Judicial Council form CR-160 (Rev. January 1, 2003), entitled "Protective Order in Criminal Proceeding (CLETS)." Beneath the heading, the form includes printed references to sections 136.2 and 1203.097, subdivision (a)(2). Below these references, the form contains four boxes: "Order Pending Trial," "Modification," "Order Post-trial Probation Condition," and ...


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.