Court Opinion

ID: 9881143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 19:04:14.380946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:10.624941
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/29/23 P. v. Brito 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                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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,                                                                  D081142

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

          v.                                                                 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD284133 &
                                                                             SCN434047)
JASON ARTURO BRITO,

          Defendant and Appellant.

          APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Saba Sheibani, Judge. Affirmed with instructions.
          Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
          Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney
General, Robin Urbanski and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                        I
                               INTRODUCTION
      Jason Arturo Brito pleaded guilty to one count of willful infliction of
corporal injury upon his fiancée resulting in a traumatic condition. On
January 16, 2020, the trial court placed him on formal probation for three
years and imposed a 10-year criminal protective order (CPO) under Penal
Code section 273.5, subdivision (j), which restrained Brito from contacting or

harassing his fiancée (hereafter, the 2020 CPO).1 Subsequently, Brito
violated the conditions of his probation and pleaded guilty to a hit-and-run in
an incident unrelated to his corporal injury case. On September 26, 2022, the
court revoked probation, sentenced Brito to prison for both crimes, and
imposed a “new” CPO (hereafter, the 2022 CPO) that was identical to the
2020 CPO with one exception—the court marked a checkbox on the CPO form
indicating it was imposing the 2022 CPO under section 1203.097. That
statute requires a court to impose a CPO when it places a defendant on
probation for a domestic violence offense.
      Brito appeals the 2022 CPO and claims it is statutorily unauthorized
because the trial court sentenced him to prison—rather than placing him on
probation—when it issued the 2022 CPO. The People contend the 2022 CPO
was not a “new” CPO at all. According to the People, the trial court merely
reissued the existing 2020 CPO and marked the wrong checkbox specifying
the statutory basis for the reissued CPO. We agree with the People.
Therefore, we affirm the CPO and instruct the trial court to correct the
clerical error by marking the checkbox on the CPO form identifying the
accurate statutory basis for the CPO.

1     Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                                        2
                                        II
                                 BACKGROUND
      On November 18, 2019, the San Diego District Attorney filed a felony
complaint in case SCD284133 charging Brito with two counts of willful
infliction of corporal injury upon his fiancée, A.B., resulting in a traumatic
condition. (§ 273.5; counts 1–2). According to the probation report, count 1
arose from an encounter that began as a verbal fight between Brito and A.B.
about Brito’s drinking habits. After the fight, Brito consumed alcohol, came
into A.B.’s room, and punched her in the face and body about 15 times. The
probation report states that count 2 arose from an altercation in which Brito
struck A.B. with a pillow causing her to sustain a black eye.
      On December 4, 2019, Brito pleaded guilty to count 1 in exchange for
dismissal of count 2 and a stipulated disposition of 365 days in jail and
release into a residential treatment facility. On his plea form, Brito signed
his initials next to a factual basis that read, “I willfully + unlawfully inflicted
a corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon my fiancée.”
      On January 16, 2020, the trial court held a hearing during which it
suspended imposition of sentence and placed Brito on formal probation for
three years with a 365-day custodial commitment. The court also terminated
an existing 3-year CPO issued under section 136.2 (hereafter, the 2019 CPO)
and replaced it with the 10-year 2020 CPO issued under section 273.5,

subdivision (j).2 The 2020 CPO prohibited Brito from contacting A.B., coming
within 100 yards of her, or coming near her home, place of employment,
school, and vehicle, and it had an expiration date of January 16, 2030.
During the hearing on January 16, 2020, the court and the parties discussed

2     We grant the People’s unopposed request for judicial notice of the trial
court orders terminating the 2019 CPO and imposing the 2020 CPO. (Evid.
Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)
                                         3
A.B.’s safety and the CPO. The People read a victim impact statement from
A.B. describing the negative impact Brito’s conduct had on her emotional
state and sense of security. The defense conceded the “need to make sure
[Brito was] not contacting the victim in [the] case.” And the court advised
Brito of the terms of the CPO, including the restrictions it imposed and the
duration of the CPO.
      On August 25, 2021, the San Diego County Probation Department filed
a report stating Brito had violated several conditions of probation by:
(1) failing to enroll in rehabilitative and parenting courses, (2) not reporting
to his probation officer when requested, and (3) changing his address without
notifying his probation officer. The report recommended that the court
revoke probation. On or about August 30, 2021, the court summarily revoked
probation and issued a bench warrant.
      On May 19, 2022, the San Diego District Attorney filed a felony
complaint in case SCN434047 charging Brito with one count of perpetrating a
hit-and-run (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count 1). According to the San
Diego County Probation Department, Brito drove his vehicle at speed of 70
miles per hour through a red light at a traffic intersection, collided with
another vehicle, and fled the crime scene. At some point after the filing of the
felony complaint, the court consolidated Brito’s corporal injury and hit-and-
run cases.
      On August 29, 2022, Brito pleaded guilty to the hit-and-run charge in
exchange for a stipulated prison term of 16 months to run concurrently with
a two year prison term in his corporal injury case. On the plea form, Brito
admitted he was “involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a motor
vehicle which resulted in injury to another, failed to stop to provide
identifying information and or render aid.” At the court hearing for his

                                        4
change of plea, Brito admitted he violated the conditions of his probation in
the corporal injury case and waived his right to a formal violation hearing.
The court formally revoked probation in the corporal injury case.
      On September 26, 2022, the court imposed a two year prison sentence
for the corporal injury conviction and a concurrent 16 month prison sentence
for the hit-and-run conviction. It also issued the 2022 CPO, which was
identical to the 2020 CPO in all key respects, except for one difference. As
noted, the court had marked a checkbox on the CPO form indicating it was
issuing the 2020 CPO under section 273.5, subdivision (j). By contrast, it
marked a checkbox on the CPO form indicating it was issuing the 2022 CPO
under section 1203.097. Brito appeals the 2022 CPO.
                                        III
                                  DISCUSSION
      When the trial court placed Brito on formal probation, it issued the
2020 CPO pursuant to section 273.5, subdivision (j), which states, “Upon
conviction [for willful infliction of corporal injury], the sentencing court shall
... consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with
the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court.
It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be
based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of
future violations, and the safety of the victim and their immediate family.
This protective order may be issued by the court whether the defendant is
sentenced to state prison or county jail, or if imposition of sentence is
suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.”
      When the court issued the 2022 CPO, it marked a box on the CPO form
indicating it was issuing the 2022 CPO under section 1203.097. “[S]ection
1203.097 lays out a number of terms and conditions that the court must

                                         5
include when it ‘imposes probation for a defendant convicted of a domestic
violence offense.’ ” (People v. Nakano (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 623, 631, italics
added.) Of relevance here, it provides, “If a person is granted probation for a
crime in which the victim is a person defined in Section 6211 of the Family
Code, the terms of probation shall include ... [¶] ... A criminal court protective
order protecting the victim from further acts of violence, threats, stalking,
sexual abuse, and harassment, and, if appropriate, containing residence
exclusion or stay-away conditions.” (§ 1203.097, subd. (a)(2).)
      According to Brito, the 2022 CPO was statutorily unauthorized because
the trial court sentenced him to prison for a domestic violence offense when it
issued the 2022 CPO; it did not place him on probation for a domestic
violence offense. The People dispute that the 2022 CPO is a “new” CPO.
They claim the 2022 CPO is merely a reissuance of the existing 2020 CPO,
and the court mistakenly marked the checkbox on the CPO form indicating
that the statutory basis for the CPO was section 1203.097.
      A facial comparison of the 2020 CPO and the 2022 CPO shows that the
CPOs are in fact the same order, notwithstanding the apparent clerical error
on the 2022 CPO. Both CPOs prohibit Brito from engaging in the exact same
conduct—contacting A.B., coming within 100 yards of her, or coming near her
home, place of employment, school, or vehicle. Both CPOs also expire on the
exact same date, January 16, 2030—precisely 10 years from the date the
court issued the 2020 CPO. The only material difference between the 2020
CPO and the 2022 CPO is that the court—apparently through inadvertence—
marked boxes on the CPO forms identifying different statutory bases for the
CPOs.
      The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the 2022 CPO also
make clear that the court was simply reissuing the 2020 CPO when it issued

                                        6
the 2022 CPO, not imposing a new protective order under an entirely
different (and legally inapplicable) statutory provision. As previously noted,
the court issued a separate order terminating the 2019 CPO when it
originally issued the 2020 CPO. But it did not issue a separate order
terminating the 2020 CPO when it imposed the 2022 CPO. Given the court’s
past use of a termination notice with respect to the 2019 CPO, one would
expect the court to issue a termination notice if it had intended to terminate
the 2020 CPO and impose a new CPO. Further, neither the court nor the
parties mentioned the issuance of a new CPO during the sentencing hearing
on September 26, 2022—a marked departure from the hearing on January
16, 2020, where the parties discussed A.B.’s safety concerns and the court
expressly admonished Brito about the specific terms of the 2020 CPO.
      For these reasons, we are convinced the trial court reissued the 2020
CPO at the hearing on September 26, 2022, rather than issuing a new CPO.
The reissued CPO contained a clerical error insofar as the court marked the
incorrect checkbox on the CPO form identifying section 1203.097 as the
statutory basis for the CPO. “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time
....” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) Accordingly, we affirm
the CPO, but instruct the court to modify the order by marking the checkbox
on the CPO form to specify the correct statutory basis for the CPO.
                                       IV
                                 DISPOSITION
      The criminal protective order dated September 26, 2022, is affirmed.
The trial court is instructed to correct the clerical error on the order by
marking the checkbox on the order form identifying the accurate statutory
basis for the order.

                                        7
                 McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

RUBIN, J.

             8