People v. Jones CA1/3

Filed 9/23/24 P. v. Jones CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167727 v. MONROE JONES, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 22NF005700A) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted Monroe Jones of possession of a billy club. (Pen. Code, § 22210; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) On appeal, he argues insufficient evidence supports the conviction because he lacked the requisite intent to commit the offense — he contends he had a mistaken but reasonable belief that he was licensed to carry the weapon. We affirm. BACKGROUND In May 2022, officers received reports of a man with a firearm in his waistband at the Millbrae Caltrain station. They arrived to find Jones, who had a rolling suitcase, detained on the station platform. Jones disclosed he had a pellet gun, which officers located inside his bag. They also found a billy club — an approximately 20-inch solid metal rod with a hole drilled into one end and a piece of fabric looped through the hole. Although officers did not ask Jones whether he was licensed to carry the weapon, he disclosed he

1

openly carried it for protection. At no point during the arrest, however, did he mention he’d been trained to use a billy club or his belief that he could lawfully carry it. The district attorney charged Jones with possession of a billy club.1 (§ 22210.) The information also alleged he had three prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b).) At trial, Jones testified that he believed he was authorized to carry the billy club at the time of his arrest. He testified he was trained by the Los Angeles Police Department to carry it and received a carry permit from the Department of Consumer Affairs (Consumer Affairs) in 1988. He received the permit despite felony convictions in 1971 and 1978. He testified he had not received notice the permit was inactive and, in support, offered a letter from Consumer Affairs allegedly confirming “Monroe Jones, Jr.” could carry a billy club. When cross-examined, however, Jones admitted the letter from Consumer Affairs was not a permit to carry a billy club. Rather, it was a response to his request that a copy of his record and permit be furnished. The responsive letter indicated Consumer Affairs could not verify his identity. And he acknowledged he lacked a copy of his permit to carry a billy club. He believed that, despite having been incarcerated for 18 years after receiving his permit, he could still lawfully carry a billy club. The permit referred to by Consumer Affairs was registered in the name of “Monroe Jones, Jr.” and not Jones’s legal name of “Monroe Jones.” The officer who arrested Jones further explained he was unable to confirm Jones had a billy club permit, even after searching for Jones’s legal name, aliases, date of