Skip to content
Name: People v. Therman
Case #: C077322
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/20/2015

Trial court properly imposed a five-year domestic violence protective order prohibiting the defendant from having contact with his wife (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (i)) after he pled guilty to falsely imprisoning her (Pen. Code, § 236). Therman was charged with residential burglary, making criminal threats, and inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. He pled no contest to false imprisonment. The prosecutor stated that the factual basis for the plea was that false imprisonment was reasonably related to the crime of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in that Therman used “force and/or violence [to] force his spouse to stay somewhere without her consent.” The trial court accepted the plea and imposed a protective order that prohibited Therman from having any contact with his spouse for five years. He appealed, arguing that the protective order was unauthorized. Held: Affirmed. Section 136.2, subdivision (i) requires that trial courts consider issuing postjudgment protective orders “in all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 . . . .” Penal Code section 13700, in turn, defines “domestic violence” as abuse committed against a spouse. “Abuse” is defined as “intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury . . . .” (Pen. Code, § 13700, subd. (a).) The trial court could reasonably conclude that Therman’s false imprisonment qualified as abuse because the factual basis for Therman’s plea was that he restrained his wife using “force and/or violence.”