The People v. Jones CA6

California Court of Appeal Aug 27, 2013 No. H039113Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding no arguable appellate issues after concluding that the defendant's claims regarding his innocence and legal representation were either legally barred by his no contest plea or unsupported by the record.

Issues

Whether a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence following a no contest plea.
Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel not supported by the record is cognizable on direct appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant cannot plead no contest in the trial court and then claim on appeal that his plea lacks evidentiary support.”

“Issues concerning the defendant’s guilt or innocence are not cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea.”

“If defendant has in mind other facts not appearing in the record, they must be presented by petition for writ of habeas corpus and not by appeal.”

Filed 8/27/13 P. v. Jones CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039113 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1229357)

ALFRED LONZO JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Alfred Jones was convicted by his no contest plea of a second violation of a protective order within a year of an earlier conviction of violating a protective order. (Count 2; Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (e).)1 He also admitted having a prior strike conviction for criminal threats prohibited by section 422. (§ 667, subds. (b) – (i); 1170.12.) Following the denial of his motion to dismiss the strike, the trial court sentenced him to 32 months in prison (the 16 month lower term doubled). Defendant filed a notice of appeal without obtaining a certificate of probable cause. The notice recited that the appeal was based on matters occurring after the plea that do not affect its validity. By letter dated May 7, 2013, this court notified defendant that his appellate counsel filed a brief inviting us to identify any arguable appellate issues. Defendant has

1 Unspecified section references are to the Penal Code.

responded with a half-page handwritten letter. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the entire record to determine whether appointed counsel has correctly determined that there are no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) In performing our review, we are required to give a brief description of the facts, the procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed, and to address any contentions personally raised by the defendant. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) III. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

The People v. Jones CA6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ALFRED LONZO JONES,

I. INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief