People v. Jones CA4/3

Filed 6/30/15 P. v. Jones CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050840

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11WF1240)

DAEVEON MONREAL JONES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Daeveon Monreal Jones of residential burglary 1 (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that a nonaccomplice was present in the residence at the time of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Defendant admitted he had suffered a prior serious and violent felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)), also a residential burglary (§§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21), 1192.7, subd. (c)(18)). After declining to strike defendant’s prior strike, the court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison. The sentence consisted of the low term of two years on the burglary conviction (§ 461, subd. (a)), an additional two years because the prior conviction required the base term to be doubled (§§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and a consecutive five year enhancement based on the prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant appealed the judgment and we appointed counsel to represent him. In her brief, counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised the court she was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given an opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, and he did so, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support a burglary conviction and that his appellate attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel in her recitation of the operative facts in this appeal. As explained below, we agree with counsel’s assessment; there are no arguable appellate issues. We affirm the judgment.