Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Jones

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta

May 21, 2015

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JEREMIAH ALLEN JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, No. 13F1507 Stephen H. Baker, Judge.

Page 1412

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1413

COUNSEL

Jean M. Marinovich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

DUARTE, J.

A jury found defendant Jeremiah Allen Jones guilty of three counts of making criminal threats, obstructing an officer, first degree burglary, and two counts of misdemeanor child endangerment. (Pen. Code, §§ 69, 273a, subd. (b), 422, 459.)[1] Defendant admitted two strikes, which were also alleged as two prior serious felonies, and admitted serving three prior prison terms. (§§ 667, subds. (a)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 25 years to life plus eight years, and defendant timely filed this appeal.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1) having him shackled during trial; (2) admitting evidence of his gang membership; (3) failing to advise him of his rights before accepting his admission to prior convictions; and (4) failing to strike an enhancement allegation and instead staying it (§ 654).

The parties agree defendant’s two serious felony convictions were not “brought and tried separately” as required by section 667, subdivision (a)(1), but disagree as to whether a trial court may impose and then stay sentence for one of those enhancements. As we explain post in the published portion of our decision, part IV of the Discussion, the answer is no. We shall vacate the enhancement, modify the sentence, and affirm the judgment as modified.

FACTS

M.H. lived in a motel with her daughters, aged nine and five. On March 5, 2013, defendant kicked in the door, took ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.