People v. Jones

California Court of Appeal Oct 30, 1998 No. No. B112968Published

Before: Epstein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an erroneous jury instruction regarding general intent for witness intimidation was harmless because the defendant's threats were unambiguous, and that the trial court correctly imposed consecutive sentences because the offenses were not committed on the same occasion.

Issues

Whether the trial court's error in instructing the jury that witness intimidation is a general intent crime was prejudicial.
Whether the trial court erred in mandating consecutive sentences under the Three Strikes law for offenses not committed on the same occasion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court’s error was harmless.”

“There is no exception to mandatory consecutive sentences when one offense is in furtherance of another.”

[726]Opinion

EPSTEIN, Acting P. J. Marlin Jones challenges his conviction under Penal Code section 136.1 for dissuading a witness from testifying.1 In the published part of this opinion, we consider appellant’s argument that the jury was improperly instructed that this offense is a general intent crime, and the “same occasion” rule for consecutive sentencing under the “Three Strikes” law. We find no prejudicial error on the former, and no error on the latter. We find no error with respect to the other sentencing issues raised by appellant. We affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Summary

On December 7, 1995, appellant entered Randy Megrdle’s residence. Appellant took a checkbook, a .357-caliber revolver, a beeper, two watches, a wallet and a gold chain from the residence. One of the checks taken from Megrdle’s apartment was used to purchase a Sega Saturn and other toys at Toys-R-Us. Although Megrdle did not sign the check, it bore his name. Tyla Brown, a cashier at Toys-R-Us, approved the check.

The revolver was returned to Megrdle by his brother Phillip Megrdle who received it from Darrell Conedy. Conedy was a friend of Randy and Phillip Megrdle, and knew appellant.

According to Conedy, appellant tried to sell Conedy a watch, a gun, and a chain that he had taken in a burglary. Appellant was wearing the gold chain. Conedy asked for the gun and appellant gave it to him. Conedy later saw an organizer with Megrdle’s checks. Conedy ripped up the checks and disposed of them.

On at least four occasions, appellant called Conedy and said, “Are you going to testify? Don’t testify.” Conedy asked, “What are you going to do about it?” Appellant replied, “I’ll do whatever I have to. Just don’t testify, man. I’m telling you, Darrell, I’ll do whatever I have to, man.” Appellant repeated this four or five times per conversation.

Appellant was charged with burglary (§ 459); forgery (§ 470); intimidation of a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)); and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (d)). Two prior serious or violent felonies were alleged. One enhancement for a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b) was also alleged.

Appellant presented a defense that Conedy and Brown committed the robbery. Conedy’s former housemate testified that when Conedy lived with

People v. Jones

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief