People v. Horton (Cal. Ct. App., May 13, 2025, No. B337373) 2025 WL 1378482, at *1
Summary : Horton was convicted of stalking and making criminal threats against Seiko H. He was acquitted of making criminal threats against Seiko’s father, John H. At sentencing, the trial court issued a 10-year protective order under Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (k), prohibiting Horton from having any contact with both Seiko and John, and an order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons. On appeal, Horton challenges the portion of the protective order naming John as a protected person, and the order directing Horton not to possess any deadly or dangerous weapons. The trial court did not err in including John as a protected person in the protective order, because there was sufficient evidence that Horton committed or attempted to commit some harm against John. The court mistakenly extended the weapons prohibition beyond firearms to any deadly or dangerous weapon. The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to strike the order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly and dangerous weapons, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Jury verdict and sentencing
The jury found Horton guilty of making criminal threats against Seiko and stalking Seiko. As to those counts, the jury found true the aggravating factors that the offense involved threats of great bodily harm or other acts revealing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness, and that the act was carried out with planning, sophistication, or professionalism. The jury also found true the aggravating factor that Horton was armed with or used a gun in stalking. The jury found Horton not guilty of making criminal threats against John.
The trial court sentenced Horton to state prison for a total term of five years, eight months. At the sentencing hearing, the court issued a 10-year protective order under section 646.9, subdivision (k), that named both Seiko and John as protected persons. The court also ordered Horton “not to own, use, threaten to use, possess, buy, or sell any deadly or dangerous weapons, firearms, firearm feeding device, or ammunition.”
Order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons
At sentencing, the trial court ordered Horton “not to own, use, threaten to use, possess, buy, or sell any deadly or dangerous weapons, firearms, firearm feeding device, or ammunition.” Both the sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment include a similar order stating, “Do not own, use, or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, including any firearms, knives, or other weapons.”On appeal, Horton contends, and the People concede, that the order prohibiting him from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons must be stricken as unauthorized. The Court agreed.
A person previously convicted of a felony is prohibited from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) or ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). Where the defendant has been convicted of a felony, the court must provide notice of these restrictions at the time of sentencing. (§ 29810, subd. (a)(2).) The trial court correctly advised him at sentencing that he was prohibited from owning or possessing any firearms, ammunition, and ammunition feeding devices. However, these statutory restrictions apply only to firearms and ammunition, and do not speak to any other “deadly” or “dangerous” weapons. The court order prohibition on owning or possessing “any deadly or dangerous weapons” is overbroad, and appears to apply to a variety of lawful items, such as kitchen utensils and common tools, that could conceivably cause death or bodily injury. Indeed, the court’s minute order and abstract of judgment state that “knives” are among the prohibited weapons.
Horton may be prosecuted and convicted of a felony in the future if he ever “owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm” (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), the order prohibiting him from owning, using, or possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons constitutes an unauthorized sentence. The abstract of judgment must be modified to strike the order to “not own, use, or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, including any firearms, knives, or other weapons.” The remaining orders in the abstract of judgment regarding firearms, including the order advising Horton that he is “prohibited from owning, purchasing, receiving, possessing or having, under their custody or control, any firearms, ammunition, and ammunition feeding devices” were properly issued and need not be modified.
Disposition
The judgment is modified to strike the order to “not own, use, or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, including any firearms, knives, or other weapons.”
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.