Filed 9/30/26 P. v. Bonilla CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A171463
v.
EDUARDO ABEL BONILLA, (Contra Costa County Super.
Ct. No. 04-23-01388)
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Eduardo Bonilla guilty of disobeying a
protective order, and the trial court placed him on three years of formal
probation.
Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court
for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436. Defendant was informed of his right to file supplemental briefing
and has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and
independently reviewed the record, and we find no errors or other issues
requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2023, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a
one-count criminal complaint charging defendant with injuring a person with
whom defendant has or had a dating relationship and specially alleging that
1
defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim. The
alleged victim was referred to as “Confidential Victim.”
On September 19, 2023, the court conducted a preliminary hearing, and
defendant was held to answer. At the preliminary hearing, Confidential
Victim testified, among other things, that she obtained a criminal protective
order against defendant, and he contacted her at least 10 times since then.
On September 28, 2023, a three-count information was filed charging
defendant with (1) injuring a person with whom defendant had a dating
relationship, (2) child endangerment, and (3) contempt of court with various
enhancement allegations. On October 9, 2023, defendant pleaded not guilty,
denied the enhancement allegations, and waived time for trial.
On January 31, 2024, the district attorney filed a first amended
information.
On June 3, 2024, the district attorney filed a second amended
information, the operative information. Defendant was charged with injuring
a person with whom he had a past or present dating relationship, a felony
(Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor child endangerment
(§ 273a, subd. (b); count 2), and misdemeanor disobeying a protective order
(§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 3). For count 1, it was alleged that defendant
inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim, Confidential Victim. (§ 12022.7,
subd. (e).) It was further alleged that defendant violated probation (§ 1203.3)
and that various aggravating circumstances applied.
A jury trial began on July 23, 2024. Defendant waived jury trial on the
allegations of aggravating factors.
Confidential Victim testified as follows. She started dating defendant
in October 2022. On August 15, 2023, defendant went to her house, which
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
she shared with her mother and her young son. Defendant and Confidential
Victim argued, and defendant punched her. Confidential Victim obtained an
emergency protective order that night and a criminal protective order on
August 18, 2023. Defendant later called her from jail. He called and texted
her on other occasions as well.
A Pittsburg police officer testified that he served an emergency
protective order on defendant on August 16, 2023, at approximately 1:00 a.m.
The officer explained that an emergency protective order provides for “no
contact with the [protected] person whether that be via phone calls, text
messages, personal contact.”
The emergency protective order was admitted in evidence. A recording
of a telephone call defendant made to Confidential Victim from jail was
played for the jury and admitted in evidence.
Testifying in his own defense, defendant denied that he punched
Confidential Victim; he testified they argued and she pushed him. Defendant
admitted he was served an emergency protective order on August 16, 2023,
and he called Confidential Victim while he was in jail. He admitted it was
his voice in the recording of the phone call from jail that was played for the
jury, and he admitted that he knew the call was a violation of the emergency
protective order.
On August 21, 2024, the jury reached a guilty verdict on count 3,
disobeying a protective order. The next day, however, defense counsel
requested that Juror No. 49 be excused, and the prosecution stipulated to the
request. Defense counsel requested that the verdict on count 3 be set aside.
The trial court excused Juror No. 49, set aside the verdict on count 3, and
added alternate Juror No. 2 to the jury. The court instructed the newly
constituted jury and resubmitted the verdict form for count 3.
3
The same day, August 22, the newly constituted jury found defendant
guilty of count 3.
On August 26, 2024, the jury reached a verdict on the remaining
counts, finding defendant not guilty of count 1, not guilty of the lesser crime
of battery of a person with whom defendant has or had a dating relationship
(§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), and not guilty of count 2.2
On August 28, 2024, defendant filed a sentencing memorandum and
statement in mitigation, “request[ing] a sentence that will permit [defendant]
to remain out of custody, such as EHD [electronic home detention] or other
Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) program.”
On August 30, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing for the
current offense and the probation violation. The disposition on the probation
violation is not the subject of this appeal. The court stated it reviewed
defendant’s sentencing brief. In the current case, the court suspended
imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation for a period of three
years. As conditions of probation, the court ordered defendant to serve 90
days “on a combination of EHD and SCRAM [secure continuous remote
alcohol monitoring]” and ordered that he comply with a criminal protective
order, complete a 52-week batterers intervention program approved by
probation, submit to alcohol and drug testing, complete outpatient treatment
for substance abuse, complete 120 hours of community service, and submit to
search of his person, residence, vehicle and electronic devices.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record on appeal and are satisfied that
appointed appellate counsel complied with his responsibilities in assessing
2 The record indicates defendant was found in violation of probation in
a case with docket No. 04-201407-4.
4
whether any colorable appellate issues exist. There are no arguable appellate
issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Miller, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Richman, Acting P. J.
_________________________
Desautels, J.
A171463, People v. Bonilla
5