78 Cal.App.5th 447
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Mark Forester (appellant) is the ex-husband of H.F.; H.F. obtained a domestic violence restraining order after threats and anger episodes.
- Forester sent numerous disturbing/threatening communications; charged with stalking with a court order in effect (§ 646.9(b)) and five counts of disobeying a court order (§ 273.6(a)).
- Jury convicted Forester on the disobeying counts; mistrial on the stalking charge; later Forester pleaded guilty to the lesser included felony stalking offense (§ 646.9(a)) admitting he willfully harassed H.F. and made a credible threat.
- The trial court suspended sentence and imposed felony probation for three years, finding the new two-year felony-probation cap (§ 1203.1(a)) did not apply to domestic-violence–related cases.
- Forester appealed, arguing § 1203.1(a) capped felony probation at two years; the People argued an exception applies because § 1203.097 mandates a minimum 36‑month probation term when the victim is a domestic‑violence victim.
- The Court of Appeal held § 1203.097’s 36‑month probation requirement falls within the § 1203.1(l)(1) exception, so the two‑year cap did not apply; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two‑year felony probation limit in Penal Code § 1203.1(a) bars a 3‑year probation term when the underlying victim is a domestic‑violence victim | § 1203.1(l)(1) excepts offenses that “include specific probation lengths within its provisions”; § 1203.097 prescribes a 36‑month minimum when the victim is a domestic‑violence victim, so exception applies (People) | § 646.9(a) (stalking) does not itself specify a probation length, so the general two‑year cap applies (Forester) | The exception in § 1203.1(l)(1) covers statutes like § 1203.097 that prescribe specific probation lengths even though they are in separate penalty provisions; therefore the two‑year cap does not apply and the 3‑year term is lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Segal v. ASICS America Corp., 12 Cal.5th 651 (2022) (statutory interpretation principles: plain meaning, context, legislative purpose)
- People v. Cates, 170 Cal.App.4th 545 (2009) (§ 1203.097 applies when underlying facts involve domestic violence even if crime statute does not reference it)
- People v. Superior Court (Gooden), 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (2019) (recognizing offense consists of prohibited act plus punishment)
- People v. Vasilyan, 174 Cal.App.4th 443 (2009) (same: both substantive crime and punishment constitute an offense)
- Tan v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.5th 130 (2022) (statutory harmonization and presumption against implied repeal)