THE PEOPLE v. AHMAND MARTIN JONES (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Ahmand Martin Jones appeals his judgment of conviction of having inflicted corporal injury on a cohabitant.   His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende ), raising no issues.   On November 24, 2010, we notified defendant of his counsel's brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered.   That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter.   We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

On October 1, 2008, after a preliminary hearing, defendant was charged with inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant, causing traumatic injury, in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a).¹  It was specially alleged that defendant caused great bodily injury, within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (e).   The information also alleged that defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction or juvenile adjudication in 2005, a violation of section 211.   The prior conviction was also alleged for purposes of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), as well as section 667.5, subdivision (b), and (in an amended information) section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

At defendant's preliminary hearing, Jacqueline M. testified that she lived with defendant for about six months, until August 9, 2008.   On that day, she and defendant argued over the use of the telephone.   When Jacqueline tossed the telephone toward another room, defendant “head-butted” her, pinned her down on the bed, choked her, punched her more than 20 times with a closed fist, and bit her on the arm.   The beating left Jacqueline very swollen around the eye, with bruises on her face and neck, a bloody nose, and a split lip.   She lost a tooth, and received six stitches on her lip.

Defendant initially pled not guilty, and counsel was appointed.   When counsel declared a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial, the proceedings were adjourned.   Psychiatric experts were appointed, and after considering their reports, the trial court declared defendant competent to stand trial.   After defendant petitioned the trial court to proceed in pro. per., the court granted defendant's request and appointed an investigator.   In July 2009, the court appointed a new investigator.   In August 2009, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the judge, which was denied.   Over the next few months, defendant filed several demurrers and motions to dismiss challenging the great bodily injury allegation, as well as motions for reconsideration when the trial court denied them.

In October 2009, an amended information was filed, defendant pled not guilty by reason of insanity, and the court appointed psychological experts to evaluate defendant.   In December 2009, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.   The trial court scheduled a jury trial, which was continued several times until finally, on April 20, 2010, the trial court deemed defendant ready for trial, which the court scheduled for April 22.   On that day, defendant moved for a continuance, which was granted and a new investigator was appointed.   Trial was again continued, and on May 10, 2010, the parties appeared and announced they were ready for trial.   The trial court found that defendant had been able to confer with his investigator, and the matter was transferred to another department for trial on May 12, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, defendant requested a continuance on the ground that his investigator was newly appointed and had been able to obtain only one witness statement.   The trial court denied the motion, and defendant informed the court that a charge of assaulting a police officer was pending in another court, and that he had refused a plea agreement in this case, because he wanted both cases to run concurrently.

At the trial court's request, the prosecutor formulated a new offer of 12 years 4 months, including credit for time already served.   She explained that, without the plea agreement, defendant's exposure with the new charge was 22 years.   A discussion ensued during which defendant's questions about the offer and his potential exposure were answered by the prosecutor and the court.

Defendant accepted the offer, and was informed of the charges against him.   Defendant represented that he understood all the charges, except the great bodily injury allegation, which he concluded from his research that the victim's injuries in this case amounted to no more than serious bodily injury.   The trial court explained that an injury to the face and nose, the necessity of six stitches, and the loss of a tooth could easily constitute great bodily injury.   Defendant asked that the charge be changed to a lesser offense, but the prosecutor refused.   Defendant was then informed of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea.   Defendant stated he understood them, waived his rights, pled no contest to the charges, and admitted the special allegations.   The trial court sentenced defendant according to the terms of the plea agreement.

On July 12, 2010, defendant brought a motion to withdraw his plea, as well as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, based upon his representation that he accepted the plea bargain “under duress and felt forced into such position because he could not get a fair trial [after] the courts refused a reasonable continuance․”  The trial court denied the motion and petition, finding that defendant had had 16 months to prepare for trial and had not demonstrated entitlement to the relief requested.   Eleven days later, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered May 12, 2010, along with a certificate of probable cause.

We conclude from this review that defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278;  People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112–113.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated..  FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

THE COURT: * FN*.  DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN–GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.