People v. Tafoya

Summary

The California Court of Appeal addressed consolidated appeals arising from Robert Michael Tafoya’s convictions for stalking, perjury, attempted child abduction, and filing false documents, as well as a related restitution order. The court rejected challenges to the stalking and attempted child abduction convictions and most of the false-document and perjury convictions, but reversed count 10 and remanded for resentencing; it affirmed the restitution order.

Holdings

1. The stalking conviction was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate the First Amendment. The conviction rested on Tafoya's entire five-year course of harassing and threatening conduct, not solely on his Facebook posts, and the posts were not constitutionally protected when considered as part of that course of conduct.
2. A fraudulently obtained visitation order was void from its inception and could not confer custody or visitation rights or serve as a defense to attempted child abduction.
3. Substantial evidence supported the attempted child abduction conviction because Tafoya's submission of forged documents to obtain visitation, announcement that he intended to pick up the children, and appearance at the school were overt acts beyond mere preparation.
4. The perjury conviction on count 8 was supported by substantial evidence because Tafoya's UCCJEA declaration, executed under penalty of perjury, contained material false statements about restraining orders and existing custody or visitation rights.
5. The perjury conviction on count 10 could not stand because the restraining-order form contained no statement by Tafoya executed under penalty of perjury. Preparing a form later signed by a judge, even if based on false assertions, did not establish perjury.
6. The filing-a-false-document conviction on count 9 was supported because Tafoya knowingly used a forged proof of service to procure entry of default, even though the request stated truthfully that E.R. had not responded.
7. The $2,500 restitution award for E.R.'s moving expenses was not an abuse of discretion. The objection based on the lack of a required verification was forfeited, and the record otherwise provided a factual and rational basis for the award under the general restitution provision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tafoya's stalking conviction was unsupported because Facebook posts relied on by the prosecution were protected First Amendment activity.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the attempted child abduction conviction when Tafoya relied on a purported visitation order.
3. Whether the convictions for perjury in counts 8 and 10 and filing a false document in count 9 were unsupported because the relevant filings contained no false statements.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding $2,500 in victim restitution for moving expenses without a law-enforcement or mental-health-provider verification.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded