Filed 5/21/14 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E059668
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1300008)
KASHIF DEMAREO JONES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elisabeth Sichel, Judge.
Affirmed.
Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Kashif Demareo
Jones pled guilty to terrorist threats (Pen. Code, § 422);1 in return, the remaining charges
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
1
were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of two years in state
prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment, challenging the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We find no error and affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
On December 18, 2012, during a domestic dispute, defendant tried to strangle his
girlfriend on three separate occasions. During the strangulation, defendant threatened to
kill the victim.
On January 29, 2013, an information was filed charging defendant with one count
of terrorist threats (§ 422; count 1); assault by means of force likely to produce great
bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2); and infliction of corporal injury upon a
spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3). The information further alleged that
defendant had suffered one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior serious felony
conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1) &
1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
On May 8, 2013, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency
and the criminal proceedings were suspended. The trial court appointed Dr. Michael E.
Kania to evaluate defendant.
On May 28, 2013, after reviewing Dr. Kania’s evaluation, the trial court found
defendant competent to stand trial and the criminal proceedings were reinstated.
2 The factual background is taken from the preliminary hearing.
2
On July 23, 2013, defendant entered into a negotiated plea. Defendant pled guilty
to committing a terrorist threat as alleged in count 1. In return, the remaining charges and
enhancement allegations would be dismissed and defendant would be sentenced to a
stipulated term of two years in state prison with credit for time served. After examining
defendant, the trial court found the plea was entered into freely and voluntarily; that
defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights; that defendant understood the
nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea; and that there was a factual basis
for his plea. Defendant thereafter requested to be immediately sentenced. Defendant was
sentenced in accordance with his plea agreements and awarded a total of 436 days credit
for time served.
On September 18, 2013, defendant filed a notice of appeal, challenging the
validity of the plea. Defendant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
and that he was manipulated into pleading guilty. Defendant also requested a certificate
of probable cause, which was denied by the trial court.
On November 19, 2013, this court approved the parties’ stipulation that the notice
of appeal deemed amended state that the appeal is based on the sentence or other matters
occurring after the plea.
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
3
the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.
4