People v. Boston CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the superior court should have acted affirmatively to terminate

the criminal protective order at sentencing on August 21, 2013. Instead, the superior

court muddied the waters when it advised defendant to the contrary: “Mr. Boston, I do

just want to remind you that the criminal protective order that was issued by Judge

Johnson at the time of the entry of the plea is still in effect. The violation of that order

can technically be a crime in and of itself for which, if you were to violate, you could

receive a consecutive term. So, it has not been recalled yet.”

Defendant now asks this court to do what he contends the trial court should have

done but did not: take affirmative action to terminate the criminal protective order.

The restraining order was issued under section 136.2. As both parties point out in

their respective briefs, the notice itself states that it is “not valid after imposition of a state

prison commitment” and cites to People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, superseded

by statute on another point as stated in Babalola v. Superior Ct. (2011)192 Cal.App.4th

948, 951 The substance of the law is not at dispute here—both…