People v. Jarvis CA4/1

Filed 12/19/23 P. v. Jarvis CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081544

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD238601)

TERRENCE JARVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed. Gene D. Vorobyov, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2014, a jury convicted Terrence Jarvis of one count of attempted

murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), two counts of robbery (§ 211), two

1 All undesignated statutory references herein are to the Penal Code.

counts of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664), one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of shooting at an inhabited occupied structure (§ 246). The jury found the attempted murder “was willful, deliberate and premeditated within the meaning of Penal Code section 189.” The jury also found true multiple sentence enhancement allegations, including that, in the commission of the attempted murder, Jarvis had “personally inflicted great bodily injury upon [the victim].” (See § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed an aggregate indeterminate sentence of 60 years to life plus 45 years and an aggregate determinate sentence of 64 years and four months. On direct appeal in 2015, we concluded the trial court had erred in imposing a five-year enhancement for each determinate term, instead of just once as part of the aggregate determinate sentence. (People v. Jarvis (Oct.