People v. Beckemeyer CA4/1
238 Cal. App. 4th 461
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background:
- Defendant (Beckemeyer) assaulted his ex-dating partner, Linda Majka, and her adult son, Craig Jakubiak, during a January 14, 2012 home intrusion; both victims suffered violent attacks (Majka: repeated blows and attempted strangulation; Jakubiak: beaten with a rock and cane, threatened with stabbing).
- Defendant pled guilty to attempted murder (Majka) and assault with a deadly weapon (Jakubiak) and admitted certain priors; sentenced to 16 years.
- At sentencing the trial court issued a 10-year postconviction protective order under Penal Code § 136.2(i) restraining defendant from contacting both Majka and Jakubiak.
- Defendant challenged the protective order as to Jakubiak, arguing § 136.2(i) authorizes postconviction domestic-violence protective orders only for persons in a statutorily defined domestic relationship with the defendant.
- The People and the court relied on § 136’s broad definition of “victim” (any natural person against whom there is reason to believe a crime was or is being perpetrated), and the 2011 amendment adding § 136.2(i) permitting up to 10-year orders in domestic-violence convictions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 136.2(i) postconviction protective order may bar contact with a person (Jakubiak) who was assaulted during a domestic-violence incident but who is not in a statutorily defined domestic relationship with the defendant | The People: § 136 defines “victim” broadly; because Jakubiak was assaulted during the domestic-violence incident, he is a “victim” and may be protected by a § 136.2(i) order | Beckemeyer: § 136.2(i) protects only the domestic-relationship victim (Majka); Jakubiak is not in a qualifying domestic relationship so the postconviction order cannot apply to him | The court affirmed: § 136’s broad “victim” definition governs; because Jakubiak was assaulted during the domestic-violence incident he qualifies as a victim and the 10-year § 136.2(i) order as to him is authorized |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fandinola, 221 Cal.App.4th 1415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles and legislative intent analysis)
- People v. Stone, 123 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (§ 136.2(a) protective orders limited to pendency of criminal action)
- People v. Selga, 162 Cal.App.4th 113 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (same limitation on § 136.2(a))
- People v. Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (Cal. 1989) (legislature presumed aware of existing statutes and decisions when enacting amendments)
- People v. Delarosarauda, 227 Cal.App.4th 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (§ 136.2(i) postconviction protective order applies only to persons who were victims of a crime; order cannot extend to individuals not assaulted during the incident)