People v. Jones CA3

Filed 11/25/20 P. v. Jones CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090620

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE- 2015-0007839, SF132584A) v.

BRENNAN TYRELL JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Brennan Tyrell Jones guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 and found true allegations that he had sustained a serious felony conviction that qualified as both a strike (§§ 667, subd. (d); 1170.12, subd. (b)) and a five-year enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). We affirmed defendant’s conviction but remanded the matter to the trial court to consider its newly conferred discretion to dismiss the five-year enhancement under Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.).

1 Undesignated references are to the Penal Code.

1

(People v. Jones (Dec. 31, 2018, C083149) [nonpub. opn.] slip opn. at pp. 21-23 (Jones I).) At the resentencing hearing, the trial court declined to dismiss the enhancement, and imposed the same sentence previously imposed: a total of 11 years, including the five- year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a). Defendant again appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike the five-year enhancement at the resentencing hearing. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND “[D]efendant entered a Rabobank in Stockton. When he asked to make a deposit to his sister’s account, the teller told him he needed the account number. He said he would return. When he returned to the bank, defendant encountered a friend from high school; they hugged and exchanged pleasantries. Defendant then went to the teller and handed her a deposit slip that said ‘Put it up’ or ‘Give me it’ or something similar. The frightened teller gave defendant about $2,000 from her cash drawer and defendant left.” (Jones I, supra, C083149, slip opn. at p. 2.) A jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery (§ 211) in July 2016, and separately found that defendant had previously been convicted of a “strike” offense, assault with an enhancement for great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); 667.5, subd. (c)(8)). (Jones I, slip opn. at p. 1.) Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a Romero motion to dismiss the strike in the interest of justice, which the trial court denied. (Jones I, slip opn. at pp. 1-2, 17-19.) Defendant was then sentenced to 11 years in state prison based on the middle term of three years, doubled to six years for the strike (§ 667, subd. (d)), plus five years for having committed a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)). On direct appeal, this court upheld the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Romero motion, and otherwise affirmed the judgment. (Jones I, supra, C083149, slip opn. at pp. 17-19, 23.) But the matter was remanded to the trial court to consider dismissing the five-year enhancement pursuant to newly granted authority under Senate Bill No. 1393. (Jones I, slip opn. at pp. 21-23.) Following our opinion in Jones I, upon remand, defense