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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TH OMAS HAROLD HAGEN,

Defendant and Appellant. B 3 2 3695

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. V

A 158173 )

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, Sc ott 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

e vidence presented at trial indicated , in pertinent part, that Hagen and the robbery victim were both homeless and acquainted with one another. I n April 2022, Hag e n 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 hand s, includi ng the phone, her money , and
her keys. On August 31, 2022, t he 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, t he
court also issued a separate 10

- year criminal protective order requiring Hagen to stay awa y from th e 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 dur ing 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 i ssued 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 th is general rule, but they are not applicable here. Section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) authorizes a
criminal court to issue a post conviction restraining order against
a defendant , valid for up to 10 ye ars, 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,
subd ivision (i)(1) or other statute s 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 ass ault 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
last s 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.