P. v. Jones CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 6, 2013 No. E054080Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that applying the One Strike law to count six violated the ex post facto clause because the offense was not subject to that sentencing scheme at the time it was committed.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by sentencing the defendant under the One Strike law for an offense committed before it was added to the statute.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“application of section 667.61 to count six in this case violated the ex post facto clause of both the California and United States Constitutions.”

“The judgment of conviction is affirmed but defendant’s sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing.”

Filed 3/6/13 P. v. Jones CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E054080

v. (Super.Ct.No. FMB900072)

DAVID WAYNE JONES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. J. David Mazurek,

Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Teresa

Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, David Wayne Jones, is serving 60 years to life (four consecutive 15-

years-to-life terms) for sexually abusing five little girls. Defendant argues that one of

these 15-years-to-life terms, count six, was not eligible for “One Strike” sentencing at the

time he committed the crime and so he should be resentenced. As discussed below, the

P. v. Jones CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

DAVID WAYNE JONES, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURE

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

KING J.

AI Brief