People v. Scott
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of sex offenses against two minor females, M.M. and A.S., under Penal Code sections including 288 and 289.
- The 1992 Act (section 1202.05) requires a no-visitation order when the victim is a child under 18 at sentencing.
- At sentencing, A.S. was 18, M.M. was under 18; the court issued no-visitation orders applying to both victims.
- The abstract of judgment and minute orders indicated a no-contact directive, which the record shows may have been clerical errors and overbroad.
- Defendant appealed, challenging the no-visitation as to A.S. (adult at sentencing) and the no-contact order as to A.S.
- The court held the act applies only to victims under 18 at the time of the contemplated visitation, and that the no-visitation order could not extend to A.S.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1202.05 no-visitation can apply to an adult victim | People argued the order was authorized by the statute as a sentencing directive. | Scott contends the no-visitation order cannot cover an adult at sentencing. | No; statute applies only to victims under 18 at visitation. |
| Whether the no-contact order concerning A.S. is authorized | People maintained inherent power to issue post-sentencing protective orders. | Scott contends no statutory basis supports a no-contact order in this context. | Stricken; no supported basis to prohibit contact with an adult victim. |
| Proper interpretation of 'child victim' under 1202.05 and the 1992 Act | The term should be read to protect all child victims regardless of later age. | The term should be read in present tense to mean victims who are children at the time of visitation. | Interpretation favors victim under 18 at time of visitation; adult victims excluded. |
| Legislative history and purpose of the 1992 Act | History shows broad protective aim to keep minors from visiting incarcerated abusers. | History does not support extending protection to adult victims. | History supports limiting effect to minors; no effect on adult victims. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) (unauthorized-sentence exception to forfeiture rule for sentencing error)
- People v. Stowell, 31 Cal.4th 1107 (Cal. 2003) (forfeiture and consideration of orders not punishments)
- People v. Rowland, 206 Cal.App.3d 119 (Cal. App. 1988) (restitution fines and appellate review)
- People v. Terrell, 69 Cal.App.4th 1246 (Cal. App. 1999) (parens patriae and juvenile-court interaction with sentencing)
- People v. Fond, 71 Cal.App.4th 127 (Cal. App. 1999) (unauthorized-sentence-like directives precedents)
- J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 1568 (Cal. App. 1994) (reliance on extrinsic materials in statutory interpretation)
- In re P.C., 137 Cal.App.4th 279 (Cal. App. 2006) (timeliness of raising constitutional or legal objections on appeal)
- People v. Hamlin, 170 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Cal. App. 2009) (acknowledgment of improper life no-contact orders)