People v. Jones CA2/8

Filed 11/27/24 P. v. Jones CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B330932

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA095729 v.

OTIS DON JONES, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed. Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, William H. Shin and Stefanie Yee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

We affirm Otis Don Jones’s four-year middle term sentence. A jury convicted Jones of first degree residential burglary and found a nonaccomplice was present in the home during the crime. Jones entered the victims’ garage one morning in December 2020 and then got in their car. He locked eyes with one of the victims, who was retired and who discovered Jones in the car with the engine on. Jones drove away in the car despite the victims’ pleas to get out. Jones does not challenge his conviction, so we shift to later proceedings. The trial and these later proceedings occurred in late May 2023. At a bench trial on aggravating factors, the prosecution argued Jones’s crimes were numerous and increasing in seriousness. The prosecutor noted the current offense was a strike offense. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones had many prior convictions. It found not true an allegation that Jones had served a prior prison term; the evidence on this issue was unclear. The court asked if Jones wished to proceed to sentencing. He did. The court paused the proceedings to review the probation report. Back on the record, the court said its finding regarding Jones’s criminal history made him eligible for the high term. “But I don’t think this is a high-term case” the court commented. “I think there might have been some mental health issues behind this. Although it is a strike, there was no violence involved; so I’m not inclined to impose high term. [¶] This looks more like a mid term case to me, but those are just my tentative thoughts.” The court invited argument from the parties.