Filed 8/31/23 P. v. Hagen CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THOMAS HAROLD HAGEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B323695

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. VA158173)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed in part and 

reversed in part.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________
2

Thomas Harold Hagen appeals from a judgment entered 

after a court trial at which the trial court found him guilty of 

second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)1 The prosecution’s 

evidence presented at trial indicated, in pertinent part, that

Hagen and the robbery victim were both homeless and 

acquainted with one another. In April 2022, Hagen approached 

the van where the victim lived, asked to see the phone she was 

holding, and said it was his. When she declined, he prevented 

her from closing the van door, hit her in the face and head, and 

took items from her hands, including the phone, her money, and 

her keys. On August 31, 2022, the trial court suspended 

imposition of sentence and placed Hagen on formal probation for 

three years with terms and conditions, including that Hagen “not 

harass, bother, molest, annoy, or communicate” with the robbery 

victim and “stay away from” her. In addition to the stay-away 

order that was a condition of Hagen’s three-year probation, the 

court also issued a separate 10-year criminal protective order

requiring Hagen to stay away from the victim. Hagen contends, 

the Attorney General concedes, and we agree that the 10-year 

criminal protective order was unauthorized in this case and must 

be stricken for the reasons explained below.

DISCUSSION

As the parties agree, there is no statute authorizing a 10-

year postconviction protective order based on the robbery 

conviction in this case.

Section 136.2, governing criminal protective orders,

“authorizes protective orders which ‘are “operative only during 

the pendency of criminal proceedings and as prejudgment 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

orders.” ’ [Citations.] The only purpose of a section 136.2 

protective order is to ‘ “protect victims and witnesses in 

connection with the criminal proceeding in which the restraining 

order is issued in order to allow participation without fear of 

reprisal.” ’ [Citation.] Accordingly, section 136.2 generally does 

not authorize a trial court to impose a postjudgment restraining 

order against a criminal defendant.” (People v. Corrales (2020) 46 

Cal.App.5th 283, 285-286.) 

There are exceptions to this general rule, but they are not 

applicable here. Section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) authorizes a 

criminal court to issue a postconviction restraining order against 

a defendant, valid for up to 10 years, when the defendant has 

been convicted of certain enumerated offenses including, but not 

limited to, domestic violence, human trafficking, and rape. (See 

also § 273.5, subd. (j) [authorizing restraining orders, valid for up 

to 10 years, for crimes involving domestic violence].) It is 

undisputed that the circumstances here did not involve domestic 

violence or any of the other offenses enumerated in section 136.2, 

subdivision (i)(1) or other statutes authorizing postconviction 

restraining orders for specific offenses. Thus, the 10-year 

postconviction restraining order based on Hagen’s robbery 

conviction is unauthorized and must be stricken. (See People v. 

Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901 [“Defendant’s convictions 

for robbery and assault are not domestic violence offenses”; 

accordingly, the “court did not have statutory authority to impose 

the [10-year] postconviction protective order, and it must be 

stricken”].) 

Hagen does not challenge the trial court’s authority to 

impose a stay-away order as a condition of his probation that

lasts the duration of his probation. (See People v. Selga (2008) 
4

162 Cal.App.4th 113, 120 [trial court “has broad discretion to 

impose reasonable probation conditions” in “light of the 

circumstances of the offense” under section 1203.1, including a 

stay-away order].)

DISPOSITION

The 10-year criminal protective order issued in this case on 

August 31, 2022 is stricken. In all other respects, the judgment 

is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

WEINGART, J.