People v. Horton

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that a postconviction protective order issued under Penal Code section 646.9 could properly include the stalking victim’s father as a protected person because competent evidence showed the defendant had committed or attempted to commit harm against him. The court also held that the sentencing court’s prohibition on possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons was overbroad and unauthorized because the applicable statutory restrictions covered firearms, ammunition, and ammunition-feeding devices. The judgment was affirmed as modified, and the trial court was directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment.

Holdings

1. A postconviction protective order under Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (k), may include a person who was not the named victim of a crime of conviction when competent evidence supports a finding that the defendant committed or attempted to commit some harm against that person. Because the record contained sufficient evidence that Horton threatened and otherwise harmed or attempted to harm John while stalking Seiko, the trial court properly included John as a protected person.
2. A sentencing order prohibiting a convicted felon from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapon, including knives and other potentially lawful items, is overbroad and unauthorized. The statutory restrictions applicable here prohibit possession of firearms, ammunition, and ammunition-feeding devices, but do not authorize a blanket prohibition on all deadly or dangerous weapons.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (k), authorized the trial court to include Seiko's father, John, as a protected person in the postconviction protective order even though Horton was acquitted of the charged criminal-threat count involving John.
2. Whether the trial court's prohibition on possessing any deadly or dangerous weapon was an unauthorized and overbroad sentence.

Disposition

affirmed