People v. Jones CA5

Filed 2/18/25 P. v. Jones CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087829 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1099818) v.

ARTHUR RAY JONES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Shawn D. Bessey, Judge.

Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2006, a jury found defendant Arthur Ray Jones guilty of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), and he was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). In February 2024, defendant filed a request for the court to recall his sentence on its own motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(3) in the interest of justice. On March 12, 2024, the court denied the request. Defendant appeals from the court’s order denying his request. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Our court sent defendant a letter notifying him counsel found no arguable issues, he had 30 days to file a supplemental letter or brief raising any arguable issues, and his failure to file a supplemental letter or brief could result in this court dismissing the appeal as abandoned. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. After considering defendant’s supplemental letter brief and independently reviewing the record, we affirm the court’s postjudgment order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2006, a jury found defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), namely, heroin. The court found true three strike prior allegations and struck multiple prior prison enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, former subd. (b)). The court denied defendant’s motion to strike his strikes pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and sentenced him to a term of 25 years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes law. Eight years later, in 2014, defendant filed a petition for relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126 under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The petition for relief was denied.