People v. Nunez CA6

Filed 10/23/15 P. v. Nunez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H041402 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1361756)

v.

ANGELA MARIE NUNEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Angela Marie Nunez pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). 1 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it imposed a criminal protective order. We modify the order. As modified, the order is affirmed.

I. Statement of Facts On July 27, 2013, police officers responded to a report of a possible robbery. The victim, a transient, stated that a few days after he and defendant had argued when he refused to go to Stockton with her, she entered his tent. After she called him derogatory names and ordered him to return items of clothing that she had given him, the victim

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

ignored her. However, defendant began punching him and kicking him. A witness reported that defendant pounded the victim’s leg and pulled a knife from her jacket. As defendant walked away from the tent, she said, “ ‘Watch out!’ ” The victim had a puncture wound on his leg and a laceration on his shoulder.

II. Discussion Defendant contends that since there was no evidence that she had a domestic relationship with the victim, the trial court erred when it imposed a no-contact order pursuant to former section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1). Former section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) stated in relevant part: “In all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence as defined in Section 13700, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim. The order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court.” Section 13700 defines “ ‘[d]omestic violence’ ” as “abuse committed against an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, ‘cohabitant’ means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship.” Here, the trial court, the prosecutor, and the probation officer repeatedly referred to the domestic violence aspects of the case. The complaint provided notice that the prosecution intended to offer other acts of domestic violence pursuant to Evidence Code 2