People v. Jones CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/20/23 P. v. Jones CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, C097536
v. (Super. Ct. No. 21F5377)
TYSON PARKER JONES,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Tyson Parker Jones asked this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our review of the record, we will modify the
judgment to reflect the imposition of a mandatory $40 court operations assessment and a
1
mandatory $30 criminal conviction assessment. We will affirm the judgment as
modified.
I
On the morning of July 30, 2021, Redding Police Officer Chad Gross responded to
a call related to narcotics dealing. He spoke to two neighborhood residents who reported
finding paraphernalia in their neighborhood and seeing numerous people coming in and
out of a particular house. Both directed Officer Gross to that house and identified an
individual named Tyson as living there. Officer Gross checked the address of the house
and discovered that defendant lived there. After learning defendant was not on formal
probation, Officer Gross contacted the records division at the police department, which
had access to court documents concerning informal probation. Officer Gross was advised
defendant was on informal probation until December 2021 with search terms for stolen
property.
Officer Gross went to defendant’s residence. Defendant’s niece answered the
front door and directed Officer Gross to defendant’s room in the garage. Officer Gross
knocked and opened the door; he found defendant seated at a table. Officer Gross
observed a sawed-off shotgun in plain view. He also found heroin and methamphetamine
on the table, containers of heroin, digital scales, shotgun ammunition, cash, a
methamphetamine pipe, and a device for ingesting heroin.
In a criminal complaint deemed an information, the prosecution charged
defendant with possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11351 -- count 1), maintaining a place for selling/using a controlled substance
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11366 -- count 2), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code,
§ 29800, subd. (a)1 -- count 3), unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
-- count 4), possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle (§ 33210 -- count 5),
misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377,
subd. (a) -- count 6), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11364, subd. (a) -- count 7). The information further alleged, as to counts 1
through 5, that defendant had a prior serious or violent felony conviction. (§ 1170.12.)
Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5. He
asserted the warrantless search was based on police officers’ incorrect belief that
defendant was on probation because, following passage of Assembly Bill No. 1950
(2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), his probation term ended prior to the search on July 30, 2021.
Defendant argued that the good faith exception to the warrant requirement under United
States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 should not apply.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress, finding the search
objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The trial court noted it was the court and
not law enforcement that was responsible for the record at issue, and Officer Gross was
objectively reasonable in relying on it.
Defendant filed a renewed motion to suppress. The trial court, relying on
Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. 1, 15 and its statement that “[a]pplication of the Leon
framework supports a categorical exception to the exclusionary rule for clerical errors of
court employees,” denied the renewed motion.
On September 9, 2022, defendant entered into an open plea of no contest to
possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior serious or
violent felony conviction (§ 1170.12) with the understanding that he would be sentenced
to no more than four years in state prison. The remaining counts were to be dismissed,
and probation on another case was to be revoked and terminated. Defendant was advised
of, and waived, his constitutional rights and the trial court found that defendant’s plea
was voluntary.
3
Prior to sentencing, defendant asked the trial court to dismiss his prior strike
conviction allegation in the interests of justice pursuant to section 1385. (See People v.
Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) The trial court granted the request.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal felony
probation for two years with various terms and conditions, including that defendant serve
180 days in county jail with nine days credit for time served.
Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The trial
court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. (See § 1237.5;
People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74.)
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of
the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.
More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
Our review of the record indicates the trial court did not orally impose a
mandatory $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8) or a mandatory $30 conviction
assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), but those assessments are shown as imposed on a
November 30, 2022 minute order. We will modify the judgment to impose the
mandatory assessments. (See People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853-854 [the Court
of Appeal may correct errors associated with mandatory sentencing without the need to
remand for further proceedings]; People v. Knightbent (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1105,
1111-1113 [correcting the amount imposed for mandatory assessments].)
Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect the imposition of a mandatory $40 court
operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and a mandatory $30 criminal conviction assessment
(Gov. Code, § 70373). The judgment is affirmed as modified.
/S/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
KRAUSE. J.
/S/
EARL, J.
5