People v. Jones-Bey CA2/8

Filed 11/20/14 P. v. Jones-Bey CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B253050

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA127004) v.

SHAUN ANTONE JONES-BEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed.

Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, James W. Bilderback II and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Defendant Shaun A. Jones-Bey appeals from his conviction of first degree robbery, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, criminal threats. His sole contention on appeal is that he was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel as a result of the trial court’s denial of his request for advisory counsel. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEURAL BACKGROUND

The nature of defendant’s contention makes a detailed recitation of the facts unnecessary. It is sufficient to state that, in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357-358), the evidence established that two armed men wearing ski masks broke through the locked screen door of a home on the 9000 block of Main Street in the City of Bellflower on October 12, 2012. One of the three residents was in the bathroom with her cell phone when the break-in occurred and was able to call 911. Before the police arrived, a third masked man entered, forced the two victims onto the ground and duct-taped their arms behind their backs. Not long after the three men left the house, defendant and Steven Mitchell were discovered hiding in nearby bushes. One of the two victims identified them as the intruders in a field identification. Defendant and Mitchell were jointly charged by amended information with first degree robbery (counts 1 and 4), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 2 and 5) and criminal threats (count 3); enhancements were alleged for gun use and prior convictions, including pursuant to the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d);§ 667, subds. (b)- (i)).1 Defendant represented himself at a dual jury trial. Defendant was found guilty on the substantive charges and the jury found true the firearm enhancements. Following a