legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Dunlap
Devon Dunlap entered a negotiated guilty plea to assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The court sentenced him to prison for the six-year upper term and issued a three-year criminal protective order (§ 136.2) barring Dunlap from contacting the victim. Dunlap appeals, contending the criminal protective order must be stricken because it was unauthorized and violates his federal constitutional right to due process. The People concede the point.
The authority of section 136.2 exists only during the pendency of the criminal case. (People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382.) There is no other applicable statutory authority for the protective order, and there was no showing a protective order was appropriate under the court's inherent authority. (Id. at pp. 382-385.)

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale