Filed 1/29/15 P. v. Jimenez CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ARMANDO GALAVIZ JIMENEZ, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 D066189 

 (Super. Ct. No. SCS267225) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore 

M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. 

 Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, 

Peter Quon, Jr. and Parag Agrawal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 
2 

 Between March and June 2013, Armando Galaviz Jimenez rented a room in the 

apartment where minor Juan O. lived with his mother, Lorena C.1 Juan suffers from 

autism. In September, Lorena reported to the police that Jimenez had sexually molested 

Juan. Juan told the police that Jimenez touched his genitals and buttocks and performed 

oral and anal sex on him on at least three separate occasions. Juan also said that Jimenez 

had showed him a sexually explicit movie. In a search of Jimenez's home, police officers 

found two fictitious United States Citizenship and Immigration Services cards bearing 

Jimenez's photograph and two fictitious Social Security cards. 

 Jimenez entered a negotiated guilty plea to committing a lewd act on a 14- or 15-

year-old child and being at least 10 years older than the child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. 

(c)(1)) (count 1);2 participating in an act of oral copulation with a person under 18 years 

old (§ 288a, subd. (b)(1)) (count 2); distributing harmful matter to a minor with the intent 

of seduction (§ 288.2, subd. (a)) (count 5); and using false documents to conceal his true 

citizenship (§ 114) (count 10). The court sentenced Jimenez to seven years in prison: the 

five-year term on count 10 and consecutive eight-month terms (one-third the middle 

term) on the remaining counts. 

 At sentencing, the court ordered that Jimenez "have no contact with the victim or 

the victim's family pursuant to . . . section 1202.05." Section 1202.05, subdivision (a) 

states: "Whenever a person is sentenced to the state prison . . . for violating 

 

1 During this period, Jimenez was 47 and 48 years old and Juan was 14 or 15 years 

old. 

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3 

Section . . . 288 [or] 288a . . . , and the victim of one or more of those offenses is a child 

under the age of 18 years, the court shall prohibit all visitation between the defendant and 

the child victim." Jimenez contends the no contact order is unauthorized insofar as it 

prevents contact with the victim's family and requests that the order be modified 

accordingly. Respondent concedes the point, and further notes the order is overbroad in 

that it prohibits contact, not just visitation. We agree. 

 Although there is no case directly on point, the following case law is instructive. 

"The starting point with any argument based on statutory construction is the words of the 

statute. [Citation.] We give those words their usual and ordinary meaning, and if there is 

no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain 

meaning of the language governs. [Citation.]" (People v. Ochoa (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 

562, 565.) The language of section 1202.05, subdivision (a) is clear and unambiguous. 

(People v. Ochoa, supra, at pp. 564-565.) It authorizes only a prohibition of visitation 

between the defendant and the child victim of the applicable offenses. (Id at pp. 564-566 

[striking portion of no visitation order encompassing victims of offenses for which 

defendant was not sentenced to prison]; Robin J. v. Superior Court (2004) 

124 Cal.App.4th 414, 421, 424 [juvenile court exceeded authority in declaring invalid a 

prison regulation concerning visitation between minor children and inmates incarcerated 

for committing certain sexual offenses (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3173.1)]; see People v. 

Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307 [minute order and abstract of judgment referred 

to "no contact," although the court's oral pronouncement did not; § 1202.5 did not 

authorize prohibition of visitation with victim who was no longer minor at time of 
4 

sentencing].) Section 1202.05 contains no prohibition regarding anyone other than the 

victim (People v. Ochoa, supra, at pp. 564-566) and no prohibition of "contact" 

(see People v. Scott, supra, at pp. 1317-1318, 1323-1325). Our research has not revealed 

any other statute or prison regulation that would authorize the order made in the instant 

case. 

DISPOSITION 

 The order prohibiting Jimenez from having contact with the victim and the 

victim's family is modified to delete references to the victim's family and to limit the 

restriction concerning the victim to visitation. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. 

The superior court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly and forward 

the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

As required by section 1202.05, subdivision (a), the court shall transmit the amended 

order to, as applicable, "the parents, adoptive parents, or guardians, or a combination 

thereof, of the child victim, and to the child victim." 

HALLER, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

MCCONNELL, P. J. 

O'ROURKE, J.