P. v. Jones 9/3/10 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » P. v. Jones 9/3/10 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C059440

Case Date: 12/16/2010

Preview:Filed 9/3/10

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ---THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JONES, SR., Defendant and Appellant. C059440 (Super. Ct. No. 04-6100)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, Thomas Edward Warriner, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans, Clara M. Levers, and Judy Kaida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

In exchange for a maximum prison term, defendant Christopher Allen Jones, Sr., pleaded no contest to several counts of criminal conduct and admitted a prior serious felony

1

conviction and a prior prison term.

To comply with the plea

agreement and avoid the sentencing requirements of the "Three Strikes" law, the trial court struck the prior serious felony conviction and prior prison term. After doing so, the court

sentenced defendant to the maximum term allowed by the plea agreement. It imposed consecutive sentences for two of the

counts and concurrent sentences for the remaining counts. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the information in an affidavit supporting a search warrant was stale and therefore did not supply probable cause, (2) the courts imposition of consecutive and concurrent terms violated Penal Code section 654s prohibition on double punishment, and (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not argue against consecutive sentencing. After briefing was

completed, we invited the parties to submit supplemental briefs concerning (4) whether defendant is eligible for additional presentence custody credit pursuant to recent amendments to Penal Code section 4019. We conclude that (1) the information in the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not stale and supported the trial courts probable cause finding, (2) defendant is barred from arguing that the sentence violated Penal Code section 654 because the trial court sentenced within the maximum term negotiated in the plea agreement, (3) defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, and (4) defendant may be eligible for additional presentence custody credit if the prior serious felony conviction is stricken for that purpose. 2

Therefore, we affirm the conviction but remand for further proceedings concerning presentence custody credit. PROCEDURE Defendant was charged by information with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,

Download P. v. Jones 9/3/10 CA3.pdf