People v. VanCamp CA5

── People v. VanCamp CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 P. v. VanCamp CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F089432 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F23906725) v. JACKIE GLENN VANCAMP, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Ryan I. Wells, Judge. Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.  Defendant Jackie Glenn VanCamp pled no contest to four counts of maliciously attempting to dissuade a witness. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison. The trial court also imposed fines and fees. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no error and asking us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was afforded an opportunity to submit a letter brief, and he did so. Subsequently, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding the following questions: “1. Do any of defendant’s convictions for maliciously attempting to dissuade a witness involve domestic violence as required by [Penal Code] section 136.2, subdivision (i)? [¶] 2. Did the trial court err by checking box 10 on the criminal protective order, which relates to pretrial orders issued pursuant to [Penal Code] section 136.2, subdivision (a)(1)? [¶] 3. Because defendant did not have the benefit of Kopp’s[1] reasoning and did not invoke the excessive fines clauses in the trial court, should we remand the matter to give him the opportunity to challenge his punitive fines pursuant to the excessive fines clauses?” In his supplemental brief, defendant’s appointed counsel contends that none of defendant’s convictions involve domestic violence, the trial court erred by checking box 10, and the case should be remanded to give defendant the opportunity to challenge the fines and fees. The People did not submit a supplemental brief. After considering appointed counsel’s supplemental brief and the contentions raised by defendant, and conducting our own independent review of the record, we conclude the trial court erred in issuing the criminal protective under section 136.2, subdivision (i).2 Additionally, in light of the reasoning and holding in Kopp, we will 1 People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23 (Kopp). 2 As the trial court erred in issuing the criminal protective order and we are directing the trial court to strike it, we do not address whether the court erred by checking box 10 on the protective order. 2. direct the court to give defendant an opportunity to challenge the restitution fine, the court operations assessment, and the court facilities assessment. However, there are no other arguable issues that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, and in all