California Court of Appeal Sep 8, 2025 No. E082569Unpublished
Filed 9/8/25 P. v. Merritt CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082569
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF2300403)
TRAVIS STERLING MERRITT, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Walter H. Kubelun,
Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Alan
L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Travis Sterling Merritt of four counts
of contempt for violating a protective order issued in July 2021 (July 2021 protective
order). (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (c)(1).)1 The trial court sentenced defendant to jail for
a term of 364 days and issued a new protective order that will expire in 2033 (§ 136.2,
subd. (i)). Defendant contends the trial court erred in issuing the new protective order
because (1) defendant was not convicted of a crime involving domestic violence; (2)
defendant’s children were not victims; (3) defendant’s conduct did not involve physical
violence or a threat of physical violence; and (4) defendant did not act intentionally or
recklessly. As a separate issue, we observe that the new protective order contains a
clerical error. We affirm with directions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. BACKGROUND
N.B. and defendant share four children, who are two sets of twins. The elder
twins were born in 2007. The younger twins were born in 2015. N.B. and defendant
ended their dating relationship in 2018. Upon ending their relationship, defendant had
visits with the children. The younger children’s visits were arranged with defendant’s
mother serving as the middleman between N.B. and defendant. The older twins
arranged their visits directly with defendant and met him outside their apartment
complex’s leasing office—defendant was not permitted inside N.B.’s apartment
complex.
1 All subsequent statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
B. PRIOR CRIMINAL CASE
On July 6, 2021, in another criminal case (Riverside County case No.
SWF1900519), defendant was convicted of first degree residential burglary (§ 459).
The trial court issued a criminal domestic violence protective order against defendant,
i.e., the July 2021 protective order. (§§ 136.2, subd. (i)(1), 646.9, subd. (k).) The order
protected N.B. and the four children she shares with defendant (collectively, the
victims). Among other things, the order prohibited defendant from harassing the
victims, destroying the victims’ real or personal property, disturbing the victims’ peace,
having contact with the victims, and coming within 100 yards of the victims. The order
was scheduled to expire on July 6, 2031.
C. CURRENT CASE
In the instant case, the four counts of contempt concern acts by defendant on four
separate days: March 7, 8, 16, and 17, 2023. The victims reside in a second-floor
apartment. On March 7, 2023, defendant was directly below the victims’ balcony,
singing love songs. On March 8, 2023, defendant returned to the same location and
sang love songs. On March 16, 2023, defendant came to the victims’ front door and
sang love songs. On all three occasions, the victims ignored defendant.
On March 17, 2023, N.B. reported defendant’s violation of the July 2021
protective order to the police. Upon leaving the police station, N.B. picked up the
younger twins from school and went home. The older twins walked home from high
school separately. J.M., one of the older twins, arrived home approximately 20 minutes
before her twin, M.M.
3
As M.M. approached the apartment complex, she texted N.B., “ ‘Mom, dad’s
here.’ ” N.B. immediately called M.M. because N.B. was concerned that defendant’s
behavior was becoming more aggressive. M.M. said she was approaching the gate to
the apartment complex. N.B. called 911. Defendant approached M.M., but she ignored
him and continued walking. Defendant followed M.M. inside the complex’s gates.
As M.M. climbed the stairs to the apartment, defendant was behind her. N.B.
opened the door and M.M. entered the apartment. Defendant used his hand to stop N.B.
from closing the door. The older twins and N.B. tried to close the door while defendant
was outside trying to push the door further open. M.M. was trying to close the door
because she was concerned for N.B.’s safety, in that she thought defendant would harm
N.B. Defendant said, “ ‘Let me in, (. . . N.B.). I just want to talk to you. Let me in.’ ”
N.B. repeatedly screamed at defendant, “ ‘Go away. Leave us alone.’ ”
Police arrived. The struggle over the door ended. The door and doorframe were
damaged in the struggle. When police arrived, defendant was holding a sharp piece of
wood, approximately one foot long, that splintered off from the damaged door.
Defendant tossed the piece of wood aside when directed to do so by the police.
4
DISCUSSION
A. AN ACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Defendant contends the trial court erred in issuing a protective order (§ 136.2,
subd. (i)) because he was not convicted of a crime involving domestic violence.2
“When a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic
violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, . . . the
court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant
from any contact with a victim of the crime.” (§ 136.2, subd.(i)(1).) Under the Family
Code, “ ‘[d]omestic violence’ is abuse perpetrated against . . . [¶] . . . [¶] [a] person
with whom the respondent has had a child” and “[a] child of a party.” (Fam. Code,
§ 6211, subds. (d) & (e).) “Abuse” is defined as “engag[ing] in any behavior that has
been or could be enjoined pursuant to [Family Code] Section 6320.” (Fam. Code,
§ 6203, subd. (a)(4); see also People v. Caceres (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 917, 921-922.)
Family Code section 6320, subdivision (a), authorizes the court to issue an order
prohibiting a person from a variety of activities, including contacting or coming within a
certain distance of a specified person.
The July 2021 protective order was issued under section 136.2, subdivision
(i)(1), which was the same statutory authority for issuing the protective order at issue in
the instant case. The July 2021 protective order prohibited defendant from contacting
2 The People contend defendant forfeited this issue by not objecting to the protective order in the trial court. Defendant asserts the protective order can be reviewed as part of an allegedly unauthorized sentence. We choose to address the merits of defendant’s contention.
5
the victims and coming within 100 yards of the victims. That is the exact conduct that
can be enjoined under Family Code section 6320. Accordingly, the conduct enjoined in
the July 2021 protective order was the type that “has been or could be enjoined pursuant
appears to rely on a different type of harm, which is “intentionally or recklessly
caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to cause bodily injury.” (Fam. Code, § 6203, subd. (a)(1).)
Because that type of harm is not relevant in this case, defendant’s argument is not
persuasive.
F. CLERICAL ERROR
1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During sentencing in the instant case, the trial court said that N.B. and the four
children would be protected under the protective order. The court then said to
defendant, “You must stay a hundred yards away from them, their home, school, work,
car, no matter what it is, there is no contact.”
On the protective order, N.B. is named as the “Protected person.” In section 3 of
the order, the four children are named as “Additional protected persons.” The “Stay-
away order” section requires defendant to “stay at least 100 yards away from the
protected person and their . . . .” The court checked the boxes next to “home,” “job or
workplace,” and “vehicle,” but did not check the box next to “other protected person in
item 3.”
2. ANALYSIS
In reading the protective order, we observed the trial court made a clerical error
because it did not check the box ordering defendant to stay at least 100 yards away from
8
the four children. (Box 13(d) of Judicial Council Form CR-160 (2023 version).) When
there is a conflict in sentencing between an oral pronouncement and a written order, the
oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Avila (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 819, 828.) We
will direct the trial court to correct the protective order to reflect defendant must also
stay at least 100 yards away from the children.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to correct the protective order to reflect that defendant
must also stay at least 100 yards away from the additional protected persons. (Box
14(d) of Judicial Council Form CR-160 (2025 version).) In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER Acting P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON J.
RAPHAEL J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating a protective order constituted a crime involving domestic violence, justifying the issuance of a new protective order that includes the defendant's children as protected persons. The court also ordered a correction to the written protective order to remedy a clerical error regarding the stay-away distance from the additional protected persons.
Issues
Whether the defendant's conviction for violating a protective order constitutes a crime involving domestic violence under Penal Code section 136.2.
Whether the defendant's children qualify as victims of domestic violence for the purpose of a protective order.
Whether physical harm or a threat of physical harm is a prerequisite for a finding of abuse.
Whether the trial court committed a clerical error in the written protective order regarding the stay-away distance from the children.
Disposition. Affirmed with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“When defendant violated the July 2021 protective order, he committed acts of abuse in that his conduct “ha[d] been or could be enjoined pursuant to [Family Code] Section 6320.””
“Accordingly, defendant was convicted of a crime involving domestic violence.”
“Abuse includes acts such as disturbing the peace, which is conduct that “destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.””