legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Jones
Defendants went on a five-hour crime spree. Defendant, who was armed with a gun, robbed a restaurant and two gas stations, each time fleeing to a waiting car driven by defendant Jones.
Juries convicted each defendant of three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, S 211; unspecified section references that follow are to the Penal Code) and one count of attempted robbery (SS 664/211), and found the charged enhancements to be true (SS 12022, subd. (a)(1); 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 20 years 8 months, and defendant Jones to a prison term of 5 years 8 months.
Both defendants appeal. Defendant contends that (1) statements were admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694]; (2) instructions on aiding and abetting were incomplete; (3) the court erred in failing to instruct on lesser included offenses; and (4) the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the ordered restitution and parole revocation fines. Only this last contention has merit. Court therefore order a correction to the abstract of judgment but otherwise affirm the judgment as to defendant Jones.
Court reach a different conclusion as to defendant. Defendant presents several claims of error but one is dispositive: the verdicts were returned in a manner that violated his constitutional right to a public trial. This structural error compels reversal of his convictions.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale