California v. Kelley Docket: C089721 (Third Appellate District), Opinion Date: March 29, 2022. Defendant Michael Kelley, III and the victim, L.S., were dating and lived together for two years and had a child together. When the relationship ended, L.S. obtained a domestic violence restraining order against defendant. He violated the order repeatedly. In one of several consolidated cases, defendant was charged with felony stalking. He pled guilty and the charges in the other consolidated cases were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in state prison, imposed fines and fees, and issued a criminal protective order. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing certain fines and fees despite his inability to pay, and this violated his right to due process under California v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019); and (2) the criminal protective order was unconstitutionally vague because its stay-away provision did not specify that he not do so “knowingly.” In a supplemental briefing, defendant argued (3) he was entitled to resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess., Senate Bill 567). In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded it did not have to modify the criminal protective order because the requirement that defendant not “knowingly” come within 400 yards of L.S. was implicit in the order. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court agreed with both parties that Senate Bill 567 applied retroactively to defendant’s case, and that the matter had to be remanded for resentencing in compliance with the Bill. Because the case was remanded for resentencing, defendant’s claims concerning the trial court’s imposition of fines and fees and Dueñas were deemed moot and were not addressed. #sb567 #resentencing
Appellate Court Remands Stalking Case in Light of SB 567
Want to read more?
Subscribe to possesolutions.com to keep reading this exclusive post.