P. v. Armenta
Appellant/defendant Gustavo Armenta was arrested and charged with three counts of infliction of corporal injury on his wife, T.A. Defendant's neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. E., were witnesses to the charged offenses and to prior incidents of domestic violence, and were subpoenaed to appear as witnesses at defendant's scheduled trial. While his case was pending, defendant allegedly threatened to harm Mr. and Mrs. E. if they testified against him. Defendant subsequently entered into a negotiated disposition, and he was placed on probation. As a condition of probation, the court issued an order prohibiting defendant from having any contact with T.A., Mr. E., and/or Mrs. E.
As we will explain post, Mr. and Mrs. E. reported that defendant continued to threaten them, and the People sought to revoke defendant's probation. However, the court had mistakenly terminated the protective order as to Mr. and Mrs. E. The court decided to reinstate defendant on probation, but again issued a protective order as to Mr. and Mrs. E. as a condition of defendant's probation.
On appeal, defendant contends the superior court lacked jurisdiction to issue the protective order as to Mr. and Mrs. E. because they were not victims of domestic violence, and such an order was not appropriate as a condition of his probation. We will affirm.
Comments on P. v. Armenta