Super. Ct. Nos. CM031884, CM031911
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P.J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant David Jacob Jones appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of no contest to first degree robbery and two counts of false imprisonment. He contends the trial court improperly ran the two false imprisonment counts consecutively and that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order a diagnostic study under Penal Code*fn1 section 1203.03. We affirm.*fn2
On April 7, 2009, defendant and an accomplice, Cameron, committed a home invasion robbery. Defendant had been selling marijuana and owed his supplier money. Believing that the victims, Ashton Khanchandani and Tyler Uecker, also sold marijuana, defendant thought they would have cash in their home. Either defendant or Cameron had a crowbar and stated he had a gun in his backpack.*fn4 Defendant and Cameron bound the victims with zip ties, took them to the bathroom, and forced each of them to take a pill. They stole $1,000 from the house safe, one-eighth of an ounce of marijuana, televisions, laptops, both vehicles and a puppy that belonged to one of the victims. Defendant was later found in possession of the laptop, television, and puppy. He admitted he and Cameron had committed the robbery. He claimed Cameron had used the crowbar and bound the victims. He denied knowing about the drugs given to the victims, claiming that Cameron had probably done that, because "Cameron always took pills and probably had something on him at that time." Later, he said Cameron had given the victims "Seroquel, which was a sleeping pill he had a prescription for."
On November 30, 2009, defendant again needed money to pay off his drug supplier, so he planned another robbery. Because Richard Ellison lived in a large home, defendant assumed he would be wealthy. Defendant waited outside Ellison's home in the early morning. When Ellison came out of his garage, defendant pointed a gun at him, demanded money, and ordered him to the ground. The gun was an airsoft gun, but Ellison did not consider the possibility the gun was not real. Thinking he was going to be killed by defendant, Ellison was "[a]s frightened as [he had] ever been in [his] life." When Ellison fled from the garage, defendant went into the home and stole a watch, keys, and a wallet. Defendant admitted robbing Ellison.
Regarding the November 30, 2009, robbery, defendant was charged with first degree residential robbery with an enhancement allegation of personal use of a deadly weapon, and making criminal threats. It was further alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction. In a separate complaint, defendant was charged with first degree residential robbery and two counts of kidnapping. The complaint further alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction. Two counts of false imprisonment were later added.
As part of a negotiated plea to the robbery and two false imprisonment counts, defendant agreed the aggregate maximum sentence that could be imposed was seven years and four months.
Defendant requested the court order a diagnostic evaluation under section 1203.03. Counsel argued defendant should be evaluated "to see whether there was any psychological factor that contributed to his conduct. We also would get an evaluation by counselors as to whether or not there's anything that we can do for him on probation." The court denied the request for a diagnostic evaluation, stating "[i]f I thought we'd get something valuable from it, I would not hesitate to do it."
The court then sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years and four months, consisting of the upper term of six years for robbery and two consecutive eight-month terms, one-third of the midterm, for the false imprisonment charges. In imposing the upper term for the robbery conviction, the court noted the crime involved great violence, great bodily injury or threat of great bodily injury, and defendant used or was armed with a weapon. The court found the victim was particularly vulnerable and the crime was premeditated. The court also noted defendant's prior juvenile record was an aggravating circumstance. The court ordered the two false imprisonment convictions to run consecutively with the robbery conviction as they involved separate acts of violence and were committed at different times and in separate locations. The court also ordered the two false imprisonment ...