P. v. Zavala CA4/1
In case No. SCN353387, Tomas Zavala pled guilty to causing corporal injury to a spouse or roommate (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subds. (a), (f)(1)). At sentencing, the trial court entered a 10-year criminal protective order prohibiting Zavala from contacting or coming within 100 yards of the victim or her home, place of employment, school or vehicle. Zavala appeals from the judgment, contending that the protective order is unconstitutionally vague because it does not include an explicit knowledge requirement and does not specify the exact locations and vehicles he is to avoid. We conclude that the protective order is not unconstitutionally vague.
In cases Nos. SCN356869 and SCN354747, Zavala has not identified any argument for reversal, and in our independent review of the record, we have found no arguable issues.
Comments on P. v. Zavala CA4/1