People v. Delarosarauda
227 Cal. App. 4th 205
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Carlos Delarosarauda was tried by jury and convicted of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code §273.5), two assaults (§245), and misdemeanor vandalism (§594); a deadly-weapon enhancement was found true.
- Sentenced to a total of five years in prison plus one year county jail; court imposed a 10-year criminal protective order prohibiting contact with the victim (Mirian Baquedano) and her two children, Kiarah (stepdaughter) and Jeffrey (son), except via counsel.
- Defense objected to voir dire remarks and sought a mistrial; claims on appeal included trial-court voir dire misconduct, Sixth Amendment confrontation/hearsay error (statements by Kiarah), and insufficient evidence for vandalism.
- After appeal was filed, defendant moved in superior court to correct the protective order as to Kiarah and Jeffrey; trial court denied the motion but relied on Pen. Code §136.2(a)(6) tentatively.
- Appellate court affirmed convictions, ordered correction of presentence custody credits on the abstract of judgment, and—importantly—held the trial court lacked statutory authority to issue the no-contact protective order as to Kiarah and Jeffrey, so remanded to vacate that portion of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire misconduct | Court’s comments about victim reluctance tainted jury pool | Remarks were improper and warranted mistrial | Not reversible error (convictions affirmed) |
| Confrontation / hearsay (Kiarah’s statements) | Prosecution’s use of Kiarah’s hearsay complied / admissible | Admission violated Sixth Amendment right to confront witness | Not reversed on appeal (no relief granted) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for vandalism | Evidence supported malicious intent | Insufficient proof of malice for vandalism conviction | Vandalism conviction upheld (no reversal) |
| Authority to issue 10‑year no‑contact order as to children | Statutes (§136.2(i)(1), §273.5(j)) allow orders to protect victim and immediate family; children harmed by defendant so included | Children were not "victims" of charged offenses; no statutory basis for including them | Order lacked statutory authority as to Kiarah and Jeffrey; remand to remove them from protective order |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Selga, 162 Cal.App.4th 113 (Cal. Ct. App.) (postconviction protective-order provision §136.2(a)(6) does not authorize postconviction protective orders)
- People v. Clayburg, 211 Cal.App.4th 86 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpreting similar statutory language in stalking context; court discussed when immediate-family members may be covered)
- People v. Johnson, 150 Cal.App.4th 1467 (Cal. Ct. App.) (§273.5 requires direct application of force causing corporal injury to the victim)
- Babalola v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 948 (Cal. Ct. App.) (principles of statutory interpretation and construing §136.2)