People v. Ervin CA4/1

Filed 5/23/23 P. v. Ervin CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D080336

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD289212)

JURON D. ERVIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, Collette C. Cavalier, Kathryn Kirschbaum and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Roughly eight years before the incident giving rise to this case, defendant Juron D. Ervin was in a romantic relationship with the victim,

T.S. They had a son together. Less than a year later, the couple broke up. Interaction between the two after the break-up was problematic, resulting in both a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and a criminal protective order (CPO) that prevented Ervin from contacting T.S. other than as necessary to arrange visits and communication with their son. In January 2021, Ervin went to T.S.’s home unannounced and refused to leave when she asked him to do so. When T.S.’s then-current boyfriend attempted to persuade Ervin to leave, Ervin beat up the boyfriend until he was unconscious. A jury found Ervin guilty of (among other offenses)

violating the CPO (Penal Code,1 § 166, subd. (c)(1); count 6) and the DVRO (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 7). The trial court sentenced Ervin to an aggregate prison term of seven years, eight months. Count 3—assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4))—served as the principal term. But the sentence also included an additional consecutive term of eight months (one- third the middle term of two years) on count 6 and a concurrent term of two years on count 7. On appeal, Ervin contends the court violated section 654 by imposing sentences on both counts for the same conduct. He asserts the concurrent sentence for count 7 should have been stayed. The Attorney General concedes this argument and we agree. Modifying the judgment to stay the concurrent sentence for count 7, we otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Existing Restraining Orders In September 2018, T.S. obtained a three-year DVRO against Ervin. The order prohibited Ervin from contacting T.S. other than to talk to his son,