People v. Houston CA4/1

Filed 2/15/23 P. v. Houston CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D080918

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI20000338 )

ROBERT LAWRENCE HOUSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Shahla S. Sabet, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, 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 Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In case No. FVI2000338, a jury convicted Robert Lawrence Houston of

violating a domestic violence restraining order (Pen. Code,1 § 166,

subd. (c)(4); count 4) and misdemeanor assault (§ 240; count 5).2 As to count 4, the jury also found true that Houston had suffered a prior conviction (§ 273.6) and violated a criminal protective order with a credible threat or act of violence. In a separate case (case No. FWV17001149), the court found that Houston was in violation of probation. After having previously revoked Houston’s probation in case No. FWV17001149, the court terminated Houston’s probation and sentenced him to prison for the middle term of three years. In case No. FVI2000338, the court sentenced Houston to eight months consecutive on count 4 and 180 days custody on count 5, with credit for time served. Houston appeals, contending sufficient evidence does not support his conviction for assault. In addition, he argues his conviction under count 4 was derivative of his assault conviction. Therefore, if we reverse his conviction on assault, he maintains we must reverse his conviction under count 4. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.