People v. Jones CA4/2

Filed 8/12/16 P. v. Jones CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E064993
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1500270)
JOSEPH WAYNE JONES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stanford E.
Reichert, Judge. Affirmed.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 4, 2015, defendant and appellant Joseph Wayne Jones (defendant)
entered into a negotiated plea agreement. Defendant pled guilty to one count of felony
1
identity theft under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) (count 4) and one count of
misdemeanor possession of a forged driver’s license under Penal Code section 470b
(count 3). Defendant also admitted a strike prior under Penal Code section 57,
subdivisions (b) through (i). On October 5, 2015, the court sentenced defendant to 32
months in state prison in accordance with the plea agreement. The court also awarded
defendant 454 days of presentence custody credits.
On December 14, 2015, defendant filed his notice of appeal and requested a
certificate of probable cause. The court granted defendant’s request.1
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
Defendant’s offenses involved theft or attempted theft by false pretense from Kay
Jewelers and Zales Jewelers using false identifications and personal identifying
information on December 19, 2014.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
1 Defendant also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate regarding the denial of a
post-plea nonstatutory motion for the return of property. The writ was denied (case No.
E064984).
2 The parties stipulated that the police reports would provide a factual basis for
the plea.
2
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
3