People v. Duran CA3

Filed 4/1/15 P. v. Duran CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076513

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF124372A)

v.

GILBERT RAYMOND DURAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Gilbert Raymond Duran appeals the trial court’s finding that he violated probation, contending there was insufficient evidence he willfully violated a restraining order. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Defendant is the father of Mary Dominguez’s five children. They have known each other since they were teenagers, and have been in an on-and-off relationship for 15 years. In March 2013 a restraining order was in place, prohibiting defendant from going to Dominguez’s apartment. Defendant violated the restraining order, and while at

1

Dominguez’s apartment, defendant pushed over her mother, Nellie Ramirez. Ramirez fell, hit her head on the ground, and sustained a serious head injury. Defendant pleaded no contest to assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)),1 admitted a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and admitted he violated an existing restraining order (§ 273.6). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation. The trial court also ordered defendant to stay 100 yards away from, and have no contact with, Ramirez and to stay away from her residence, vehicle, and place of employment. Among the terms and conditions of probation, defendant was also ordered to obey all laws and court orders, including the restraining order. On February 5, 2014, the People filed an order to show cause as to why probation should not be revoked. The affidavit alleged a February 3, 2014, violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a) for corporal injury to Dominguez.2 On March 12, 2014, the order to show cause was amended to allege additional violations of section 273.6 on September 5 and September 16, 2013. No victim was named.3 Ramirez testified she was not certain what had happened in September 2013 because of the concussion she sustained as a result of defendant’s assault in March, but she indicated her statements to the police were accurate. Ramirez and Dominguez lived with each other off and on, in various apartments. Their apartments were very close to each other, in the same complex. She stated on September 5, 2013, defendant came to her home and knocked on her door. She told him to leave and he did. On September 16,