People v. Vega CA3

DISCUSSION

The court orally pronounced it would and then did issue a criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2. However, the written order, signed by the judge, indicates the criminal protective order was issued pursuant to section 646.9, subdivision (k), which only applies to an individual convicted of stalking. Since defendant was not charged with or convicted of stalking, any protective order issued pursuant to section 646.9 would clearly be unauthorized. (See People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965, 996 [where cited statute does not authorize imposition of protective order against the defendant, the court cannot impose it].) When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written order, the criminal court’s oral pronouncement controls because it “constitutes the rendition of judgment,” whereas “the written document is ministerial.” (People v. Freitas (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 747, 750, fn. 2; accord People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89 [oral pronouncement is judgment and written abstract of judgment does not add to

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Our decision has no effect on the…