Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Travis Sterling Merritt of misdemeanor assault, assault with a deadly weapon, misdemeanor battery, and resisting arrest following a December 20, 2023 incident at a Murrieta barbershop. Merritt entered the shop and punched the barber, L.H., multiple times in the face while a child was in the barber chair. After being removed by a patron, M.R., Merritt returned 15 to 20 minutes later with a box cutter, slashing at L.H. and ultimately stabbing M.R., who sustained lacerations requiring stitches. In a bifurcated proceeding, Merritt admitted five prior strike convictions and two prior serious felony convictions stemming from four robbery counts and one residential burglary count.
The trial court found true six aggravating factors, denied Merritt's motion to dismiss his prior strike convictions under People v. Superior Court (Romero), struck the prior serious felony convictions pursuant to section 1385, and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 25 years to life with additional concurrent terms for the misdemeanor convictions. On appeal, Merritt raised three contentions: that his admissions to the prior conviction allegations were not knowingly and voluntarily made because he did not receive complete Boykin-Tahl advisements; that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion, primarily by failing to properly consider his youth at the time of the prior strikes; and that Assembly Bill No. 600 required the trial court to consider the mitigating circumstances enumerated in Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), when deciding whether to strike a prior strike. The court rejected all three contentions and affirmed the judgment. Merritt petitioned for rehearing, which the court denied, while modifying the opinion to correct the date and age of the robbery offenses.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Merritt's petition for rehearing and modified the opinion filed on October 2, 2026. On page 22, the court deleted the sentence stating that the first strike offenses for four counts of robbery were committed on May 18, 2007, when defendant was 19 years old, and replaced it with language stating that the offenses were committed when defendant was 17 years old. The court also deleted footnote 3 on page 22.
On page 24, the court amended '2007' to 'January 2006' and amended 'defendant was 19 years old' to 'defendant was 17 years old,' while deleting the phrase 'according to the probation report.' The court expressly stated that except for these modifications, the opinion remains unchanged, and that the modifications do not effect a change in the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied Merritt's petition for rehearing while modifying the opinion to correct the date and age of his prior robbery offenses.
- The page 22 modification deleted the specific date 'May 18, 2007' and replaced it with language stating the offenses were committed when defendant was 17 years old.
- The page 24 modification amended '2007' to 'January 2006' and deleted the probation report reference.
- Footnote 3 on page 22 was deleted as part of the modifications.
- The court expressly stated that the modifications do not effect a change in the judgment.
Why It Matters
This modification order corrects factual errors in the original opinion regarding the date and age of Merritt's prior robbery offenses. The original opinion stated that the offenses were committed on May 18, 2007, when defendant was 19 years old, but the modification order corrects this to state that the offenses were committed in January 2006 when defendant was 17 years old. The deletion of footnote 3, which had noted the discrepancy between defendant's claimed age and the probation report, further clarifies the record.
The court's express statement that the modifications do not effect a change in the judgment confirms that the correction of these factual details does not alter the outcome of the appeal. The denial of rehearing and the modification order together finalize the court's disposition of the case.