By Sofia Hosseinzadeh and Bryan Miller
MODESTO, CA – A man in Stanislaus County Superior Court this week requested the removal of a criminal protective order because he claimed the protective party consented to the removal, but Judge Carrie Stephens denied modifying the order, despite the protective party’s desires for this change, because of the accused’s history of violating protective orders.
At a case management conference over a violation of probation, Deputy Public Defender Michael Weimer spoke with Judge Stephens about the possibility of ending a protective order previously made against the accused.
“There was a restraining order, it was a protective order, for one party that you had indicated that if he had participated in some classes you would be willing to lift,” DPD Weimer said, adding, “She (protected party) is here today. She was hoping that it would be lifted so they can pursue their relationship.”
Judge Stephens was willing to consider the request if the accused was complying with education classes related to the protective order, noting, “I think what needs to happen is I need to get information from the domestic violence program as to how many classes he has completed.”
At the time of the request, the accused had been complying with the order to attend domestic violence classes, said DPD Weimer, arguing, “I believe currently, your honor, he has completed 29 classes so he’s more than halfway.”
These domestic violence classes were a requirement by the judge in order for the protection order to be modified.
Judge Stephens considered hearing from the protected party before making a decision, who told the court, “I feel like it should be dismissed.”
“I just want to know whether you want me to modify the criminal protective order that allows him to have contact with you,” Judge Stephen said. Once the protective party confirmed with Judge Stephens that removing the protective order would not create any safety concerns, Judge Stephens approved the modification.
However, the judge’s decision was quickly reversed after the judge reviewed the criminal history of the accused, and found the accused currently has unresolved violations in different protective orders against separate parties.
“I’m not modifying any criminal protective orders now. The reason why is that he’s got violations that are pending for criminal protective orders. He has to establish to the court that he’s willing to abide by the court orders, whatever they are. before I can consider modifying anything,” concluded Judge Stephens.
The protective court order remains in place and the accused’s case will return Feb 20.
