legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Stiles v. Superior Court

Stiles v. Superior Court
06:13:2006

Stiles v


Stiles v. Superior Court


 


 


Filed 5/19/06  Stiles v. Superior Court CA4/3


 


 


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


 


 


 


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


 


 


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION THREE







RYAN RICHARD STILES,


      Petitioner,


            v.


THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,


      Respondent;


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,


      Real Party in Interest.



         G036922


         (Super. Ct. No. 06HF0552)


         O P I N I O N


                        Original proceedings; petition for a writ of prohibition/mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kelly MacEachern, Judge.  Petition granted.


                        Deborah A. Kwast, Public Defender, Thomas Havlena, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Kevin Phillips, Assistant Public Defender, and Jamalyn Ollinger, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner.


                        No appearance for Respondent.


                        Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney and Gregory J. Robischon, Assistant Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.


THE COURT:

 *


                        Petitioner, Ryan Richard Stiles, contends the protective order issued at his arraignment must be vacated because it fails to comply with the good cause requirement of Penal Code section 136.2[1].  We agree and the petition is granted.


FACTS


                        Ryan Richard Stiles was arraigned on a felony complaint charging him with willfully inflicting corporal injury and false imprisonment based on an allegation that he held down the victim against her will, slapped her face, and caused a cut on the inside of her lip as a result of holding her mouth so that she would not scream.  At the arraignment on the complaint, the court asked the People if they were seeking a protective order.  The People acknowledged they had not spoken to the victim, who, according to counsel, was present in court and opposed the issuance of the protective order.  Nonetheless, the People asked for â€





Description A decision regarding willfully inflicting corporal injury and false imprisonment.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale