legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Cooley CA1/1
Following defendant Frederick Marc Cooley’s convictions for misdemeanor false imprisonment and misdemeanor simple battery on a former cohabitant, the trial court granted a three-year term of probation. The trial court also imposed a criminal protective order and various fines and fees. The court subsequently vacated defendant’s probation period due to earned custody and conduct credits, but it did not vacate the protective order or imposed fines and fees. Defendant contends on appeal the protective order and imposed fines and fees issued at sentencing must be stricken as they were issued in excess of the court’s jurisdiction and without the requisite findings. We agree substantial evidence supports issuance of the protective order, but we remand for the limited purpose of assessing the appropriate duration of the order based on the factors set forth in section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1). We also agree fees related to defendant’s probation must be stricken.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

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

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale