People v. Jones CA5 ( 2023 )

Filed 7/3/23 P. v. Jones CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F084955/F085434
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Consolidated)
v. (Stanislaus Super. Ct.
No. CR-22-006740)
RONALD LEE JONES,
Defendant and Appellant. OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Linda A.
McFadden, Judge.
Francine R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Hill, P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant Ronald Lee Jones (appellant) entered into a plea
agreement and was sentenced to a second strike term of 32 months, based on the
allegations in the amended complaint that he had two prior strike convictions.
Thereafter, defense counsel advised the court that one of the prior strike convictions was
invalid. The parties reached a new disposition and the court recalled and resentenced
appellant to two years.
On appeal, his appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with
citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the
record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental
brief. We affirm.
FACTS1
On July 13, 2022, Officer Eric Souza of the Ceres Police Department was driving
through a parking lot on East Hatch Street in Stanislaus County when he was flagged
down by Gerilyn Proctor, who was in a motorized wheelchair.
Ms. Proctor reported that a couple of days earlier, she had parked her Toyota in a
parking lot on East Service Road, which was across town. After she parked her car, she
became ill, believed she was having a heart attack, and called 911. She was taken to the
hospital by ambulance. Ms. Proctor stated she believed that she left her vehicle unlocked
with the keys in the car. While she was in the hospital, she asked a friend to check on her
car and the friend reported the car was gone.
Officer Souza drove to the area where Ms. Proctor left her car, and he saw her
Toyota at a gas station. As Souza walked up to the vehicle, appellant was sitting in the
driver’s seat but lying across the front seat. The keys were in the ignition, and the
1 The following facts are from the preliminary hearing transcript, which the parties
stipulated to as the factual basis for appellant’s plea.
2.
vehicle’s engine was running. Appellant identified himself and said that a woman he
knew named “Jerry” gave the vehicle to him a few days earlier.
Another officer transported Ms. Proctor to the scene, and she identified the 1995
Toyota as her vehicle. Officer Souza asked Ms. Proctor what the vehicle was worth, and
she said $1,000. Ms. Proctor said she did not know appellant, and no one had permission
to drive her car.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 20, 2022, a first amended complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
Stanislaus County charging appellant with count 1, unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle
(Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and count 2, receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,
§ 496d, subd. (a)), with allegations as to both counts that the value of the vehicle
exceeded $950, and he had a prior conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle and two
prior strike convictions.
On July 27, 2022, the court conducted the preliminary hearing. After the People
rested, appellant entered into a negotiated disposition and pleaded no contest to count 1,
unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle, and admitted the value of the vehicle exceeded
$950 and one prior strike conviction. Appellant was sentenced to the lower term of 16
months, doubled to 32 months in prison as the second strike term. The parties stipulated
to the preliminary hearing evidence as the factual basis. The court granted the People’s
motion to dismiss the remaining charge and allegations. The court found appellant did
not have the ability to pay any fines and fees.
On August 29, 2022, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal (case No. F084955)
and requested a certificate of probable cause because one of the two strike convictions
alleged in the amended complaint was invalid. His request for a certificate was denied.
Recall and Resentencing
On October 31, 2022, the court held a hearing on a motion that appellant brought
to either withdraw his plea or to dismiss the prior strike convictions alleged against him.
3.
The parties agreed appellant only had one prior strike conviction, and not two strikes as
alleged in the amended complaint.
The parties reached a new negotiated disposition where appellant would not
withdraw his plea, but the court would resentence him. The court recalled appellant’s
sentence, ordered all alleged prior strikes dismissed (including the one valid strike), and
sentenced appellant to the midterm of two years in prison. On November 1, 2022, a
corrected abstract of judgment was filed that showed appellant was sentenced to two
years.
On December 14, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal (case No. F085434); his
request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
On March 20, 2023, this court granted appellant’s motion to consolidate cases
Nos. F084955 and F085434 and ordered all further filings under case No. F084955.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellant’s counsel filed a Wende brief with this court in these
consolidated cases. The brief also included counsel’s declaration indicating that
appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on April 27,
2023, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable
factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4.