Filed 3/29/18 P. v. Peterson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ZANE WALLACE PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085050

(Super. Ct. No. 13F7874)




Defendant Zane Wallace Peterson contends the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it ordered him not to have contact with the family members of the deceased victim of one of his numerous arsons. The Attorney General agrees the no-contact order should be stricken, and we concur. The trial court had no statutory authority to impose the order, and the prosecutor made no showing to justify the order’s need.
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)), six counts of arson of a structure or forest land (§ 451, subd. (c)), and 15 counts of arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 44 years. Of significance here, the court also ordered defendant “to have no contact or knowingly attempt to contact in any manner the family of [the deceased victim].” Defendant contends this no-contact order is unauthorized, and we agree.
“Several statutes permit entry of a protective order under certain circumstances in a criminal case. . . . For example, section 136.2, subdivision (a) authorizes issuance of a protective order during the duration of criminal proceedings. Yet, this statute does not authorize issuance of a protective order against a defendant who has been sentenced to prison unless the defendant has been convicted of domestic violence. [Citations.] Section 1203.1, subdivision (i)(2), which authorizes a no-contact order in some sex offense cases, only applies where the defendant is granted probation. Section 1201.3, subdivision (a) authorizes a no-contact order for a period of up to 10 years but only when the defendant was convicted of a sexual offense involving a minor victim.” (People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965, 996; see also §§ 646.9, subd. (k) [court may restrain person convicted of stalking from any contact with the victim for up to 10 years]; 1202.05, subd. (a) [court must prohibit visitation between inmate convicted of certain sex crimes and a child victim].)
Here, defendant was sentenced to prison and was not convicted of a domestic violence, stalking, or sexual offense. We are unaware of any statutory authority that would authorize the no-contact order issued in this case.
In addition, even though the trial court may have had “ ‘inherent authority’ ” to order a protective order “ ‘where the Legislature has not acted,’ ” the prosecution must present a “ ‘valid showing to justify the need for the order.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Robertson, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 996.) Here, as in Robertson, “the prosecutor did not make an offer of proof or argument justifying the need for a no-contact order.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, we agree with the parties that the no-contact order must be stricken.
DISPOSITION
The no-contact order is stricken. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Raye, P. J.




/s/
Robie, J.