Thursday, September 17, 2026
Page 4
C.A. Opinion Gives No Clue as to Reason Judge Imposed DVRO on Prison Inmate
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Fifth District Court of Appeal has reversed a judgment conferring the protection of a restraining order on a woman and her two minor daughters because no action was taken on the request of the defendant to participate in the hearing on the request via Zoom, leaving unanswered why the trial judge deemed the man to be a danger given that he is serving a life sentence in prison.
The rationale of Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Tanya R. Richard in granting a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) was not an issue before the appeals court. The justices mentioned that in denying a temporary restraining order, Richard observed that emergency relief is “not appropriate as there is no immediate danger” and that “[n]o information” is contained in the petition “concerning recent abusive contact,” but there is no indication as to why the judge ordered issuance of a DVRO.
Reversal of her order came Tuesday in a “By the Court” opinion that was not certified for publication. Signing it were Acting Presiding Justice Kathleen Meehan and Justices Amy K. Guerra and Arlan L. Harrell.
Phone Contact Permitted
The only contact with the protected parties mentioned in the opinion is that defendant Robert Yim is allowed, by a 2022 Alameda Superior Court order, to have visitation once a week with his daughter—and also a child of plaintiff Veronica Correia—in the form of a 30-minute phone conversation, and is permitted to write to her. That order was not disturbed by the 2025 DVRO granted by Richard.
Tuesday’s opinion says that, except for the contact authorized in 2022, Yim is “not to harass or abuse the protected persons, not to contact them, to stay away, and prohibited appellant from purchasing, owning or possessing firearms, ammunition or body armor.”
The opinion does not explain how Yim, being incarcerated in Mule Creek State Prison in Amador County, could do other than to “stay away” from Correia and her daughters and does not tell how an inmate could possess guns, bullets and armor.
It also does not provide a clue why Correia is referred to in the body of the opinion as “Veronica C.” when the caption reads, Correia v. Yim.
Abuse of Discretion
The opinion says that the record does not reflect any response to Yim’s request to appear at the hearing remotely and declares:
“The only conclusion we can reach from the record provided is that the court chose ‘no remedy’ and made no determination regarding appellant’s meaningful access to the court….Thus, the court abused its discretion when it failed to consider and rule on appellant’s request before holding the evidentiary hearing without him. or craft an alternative remedy to safeguard appellant’s access to the courts….
“The remedy for the trial court’s error is a new hearing that comports with the principles of due process and equal protection, and safeguards appellant’s access to the courts. On remand, the court must determine whether appellant is presently indigent, whether he is incarcerated or otherwise subject to restrictions on his liberty that necessitate assistance with meaningful access to the courts, and if so, the court shall exercise its discretion to select or fashion an appropriate means of affording appellant meaningful access.”
The case number is F090712.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company