California Court of Appeal Feb 16, 2023 No. E077868Unpublished
Filed 2/16/23 P. v. Allen CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E077868
v. (Super. Ct. No. INF1800930)
JAON JAMES ALLEN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Otis Sterling III, Judge.
Affirmed.
Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland , Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and
Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
While demanding money, defendant and appellant Jason James Allen attacked his
roommate, J.B., with a baseball bat, causing J.B. severe, extensive, and permanent
injuries. A jury convicted defendant of various offenses and he was sentenced to a term
of 15 years, eight months, plus a term of seven years to life.
Defendant argues insufficient evidence supports his robbery conviction, the trial 1 court erroneously instructed the jury on lesser included offenses and denied his Marsden
motion, and his trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment rights by conceding he was
guilty of two charges. We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant and J.B. met in early 2018. Defendant was having financial troubles,
so J.B. offered his spare bedroom to defendant for $100 per week. They lived together
for a few months without any problems until J.B. thought defendant “started going
downhill.” Defendant lost his job and was just laying around all day. J.B. had loaned
defendant money several times and felt like he had become “more or less like an ATM”
for defendant.
1 See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
2
J.B. eventually could no longer help defendant financially because the house was
being sold and J.B. needed to save up as money as he could for the move. J.B. kept
$3,500 in case in his wallet and some money in his kitchen drawer. He told defendant he
wanted to buy a new truck and carried cash on him in case he saw one he wanted to buy,
but told defendant he only had $1,500 because he did not want defendant to know how
much he had saved.
One evening in May 2018, defendant’s car would not start and accused J.B. of
“‘messing with it.’” J.B. denied the accusation and told defendant that he had been living
in J.B.’s house for five months and was free to leave if he thought J.B. was messing with
his car.
After their brief argument, defendant went to his bedroom. About 40 minutes
later, defendant apologized to J.B. and acknowledged that J.B. had done a lot for him.
Defendant said he did not want to go to bed angry and asked for a hug. They hugged,
and J.B. thought the problem had been “squashed.” Both of them went to bed shortly
afterward.
Around 3:00 a.m. the next morning, J.B. woke up to the sound of breathing and
defendant on top of him. Defendant then hit J.B. twice in the forehead with an aluminum
baseball bat. J.B. tried to get up, but defendant kept hitting him with the bat “over and
over.” Defendant hit J.B. by lifting his arms up and striking downward as well as by
swinging the bat from the left to right.
3
J.B. began feeling dizziness past the point of pain, yet defendant kept hitting him.
J.B. tried to push defendant away with his foot, but defendant hit him in the leg
repeatedly and broke his leg. J.B. tried using his other foot, but defendant broke his foot
by hitting it with the bat.
J.B. tried to escape but slipped on his blood. Defendant hit J.B. on his head,
pacemaker, ribs, and testicles. Defendant told J.B., “‘You shouldn’t have made me mad.
Now I have to kill you.’” and “‘You’re going to die.’” Defendant kept hitting J.B. with
the bat “anywhere and everywhere he could.” At one point, defendant had to stop and
catch his breath.
Defendant then asked J.B. where his keys were. J.B. said they were on his
nightstand and told defendant to take them and leave. Defendant grabbed the keys and
said he wanted J.B.’s money. J.B. said his money was not in the house, but defendant
said he knew J.B. had money on him to buy a truck and demanded “[t]he money in
[J.B.’s] wallet.” Defendant then said, “‘I want your money now, or I’m going to make
your death really painful.’”
Fearful for his life, J.B. told defendant the money was in the kitchen drawer.
Defendant dragged J.B. toward the kitchen, but he was able to escape. J.B. went to his
neighbors’ house while yelling for help. When his neighbors answered their door, J.B.
repeatedly asked for help and said, “‘[m]y roommate just beat me with a baseball bat.’”
They helped J.B. inside and called 911. J.B. was covered in his blood and looked like he
4
was in shock and was going to lose consciousness. He told his neighbors that his
roommate had “taken off” with his car and money.
When law enforcement searched J.B.’s home, they found an aluminum baseball
bat with dried blood on it. There was a large amount of blood on J.B.’s bed and some on
his bedroom walls. J.B.’s car was missing and his wallet was on the floor next to his bed
with no money in it. J.B. usually kept his money in the kitchen drawer or the top drawer
of nightstand next to his bed, which law enforcement observed was partially open.
Defendant’s cell phone was traced to Modesto, where J.B.’s car was later found in
a parking lot. Defendant’s cell phone records showed he was traveling north, and he was
eventually arrested in Washington.
J.B. was hospitalized for 10 days. He suffered multiple injuries, including: a skull
fracture that required nine staples in the back of his head; a broken back; a broken nose; a
facial fracture and a pushed-in eye socket; a fractured elbow; a broken finger and hand;
bruises all over the front and back of his entire body; a broken leg; head lacerations; and
an ear ripped in half; and a ruptured testicle. He required several surgeries, including one
to remove a testicle, and a blood transfusion. J.B. also suffered anemia because of acute
blood loss.
J.B. was left with permanent injuries. He has several scars, including a large one
across the back of his head. Part of his ear is also missing and one of his fingers is
permanently disfigured. Because of his finger injury, J.B. can no longer work as a
painter. He cannot bend over or squat down all the way, and his foot hurts if he works
5
for more than a couple of hours. J.B. frequently gets dizzy and has trouble connecting his
thoughts and talking. He also suffers from anxiety and panic attacks and is “paranoid”
distinguishable because the defendant there “vociferously insisted on his innocence and
16
adamantly objected to any admission of guilt,” yet the trial court allowed his counsel to
concede the defendant committed three murders. (McCoy v. Louisiana, supra, at p.
1503.) Defendant, however, never objected to defense counsel’s concessions, so McCoy
does not apply here. (See People v. Lopez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 63 [finding
McCoy distinguishable because the defendant did not object to attorney’s concession of
guilt].)
Farwell is also distinguishable. The parties there stipulated that the defendant had
committed all the elements of one charge and the trial court instructed the jury that it had
to accept the stipulated facts as true. (People v. Farwell, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 299.) The
trial court, however, did not advise the defendant of his “constitutional rights implicated
by . . . the stipulation” and did not “solicit a personal waiver of those rights” from the
defendant. (Ibid.) Our Supreme Court held that the trial court erred because the
stipulation was “tantamount to a guilty plea” and made “the guilty verdict a foregone
conclusion.” (Id. at pp. 299, 308.)
As our colleagues recognized in Lopez, we are bound by Cain and our Supreme
Court’s other decisions holding that defense counsel may constitutionally concede a
defendant’s guilt on some, but not all charges, so long as the defendant does not object.
(People v. Lopez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 63.) Because defendant never objected to
his counsel doing so during closing argument, we conclude defendant’s Sixth
Amendment rights were not violated.
17
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
18
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that substantial evidence supported the robbery conviction, the trial court properly instructed the jury, the denial of the Marsden motion was not an abuse of discretion, and defense counsel's concession of guilt on certain charges did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Issues
Whether substantial evidence supports the robbery conviction.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's Marsden motion.
Whether defense counsel violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by conceding guilt on specific charges during closing argument.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court here reasonably found that there was no irreconcilable conflict between defendant and counsel, despite defendant’s lack of confidence in counsel’s abilities.”
“counsel’s decision not to contest, and even expressly to concede, guilt on one or more charges at the guilt phase of a capital trial is not tantamount to a guilty plea.”
“Because defendant never objected to his counsel doing so during closing argument, we conclude defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.”