People v. Jones
200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 671
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 4, 2011, homeowners discovered a nighttime residential burglary; stolen items later found in defendant Robert Alan Jones's room and he was found with cigarettes from the theft. He resisted arrest.
- Jones was tried and convicted of residential burglary (Pen. Code §459), receiving stolen property (§496(a)), and resisting an officer (§148(a)(1)); jury found multiple prior felonies and two prior serious felonies (residential burglaries).
- At sentencing the court struck one prior serious felony (Romero motion) and imposed an aggregate term of 25 years under the Three Strikes law.
- Defense counsel had previously represented a potential defense witness, Ronald Willis; Willis refused to waive any conflict and defense decided not to call him. Jones later challenged counsel’s conflict of interest.
- The trial court stated oral reasons for striking one strike at sentencing but did not enter those reasons in the minutes; statutory amendment to Penal Code §1385 had occurred after sentencing but before appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s prior representation of a potential witness created a conflict of interest requiring reversal | AG: No separate AG issue on conflict (People opposed reversal); argued trial court procedure re: minutes for strike only | Jones: Counsel’s prior representation of Willis created an actual conflict that violated his Sixth Amendment right and requires reversal | Court: Even if an actual conflict existed, Jones failed to show prejudice (no reasonable probability of a different outcome); no presumption of prejudice because representation was serial, not concurrent |
| Whether failure to include written reasons in the minutes for dismissing a strike requires remand | AG: Remand required; at sentencing former Penal Code §1385 required written reasons in minutes | Jones: Oral reasons were given; amendment to §1385 made written minutes unnecessary unless requested or unreported proceedings | Court: Apply current law on appeal; amendment to §1385 eliminated mandatory minutes requirement in most cases, so remand not required where oral reasons were given and no request for written minutes was made |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (explains Sixth Amendment conflict-of-interest and prejudice standards)
- People v. Cox, 53 Cal.3d 618 (discusses assessing counsel performance and prejudice claims)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (conflict-of-interest claims evaluated under Strickland framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requiring prejudice)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (ethical standards guide but do not control Sixth Amendment analysis)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (duty of loyalty continues after representation ends)
- People v. Bonnetta, 46 Cal.4th 143 (interpreting former §1385 requirement to place reasons in minutes)
- Beckman v. Thompson, 4 Cal.App.4th 481 (appellate courts apply law as it exists when decision is rendered)