The Rule of People v. Jones is that a defendant confined in jail in one county cannot willfully fail to appear for sentencing in another county, and the prosecution must prove a willful failure to appear with admissible evidence including certified court records, under circumstances where a defendant enters a Cruz waiver plea agreement.
Appeal from judgment after no contest plea in Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County.
Defendant Appellant was Freland Brian Jones — the defendant who entered a no contest plea to corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant with a Cruz waiver agreement.
Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting party seeking to enforce the Cruz waiver violation.
The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant and violating a court order.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Jones entered a no contest plea on December 5, 2023, with a Cruz waiver agreement providing for probation if he appeared for sentencing, or four years prison if he failed to appear. He did not appear at the January 16, 2024 sentencing hearing because he was in custody in Fresno County jail on another case.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court found a violation of the Cruz waiver and imposed a four-year prison sentence, ruling that Jones willfully failed to appear for sentencing based on uncertified court documents and a CLETS report showing he had been convicted in Fresno County.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether a defendant confined in jail can willfully fail to appear for sentencing in another county. 2. Whether uncertified court documents are sufficient evidence to prove a Cruz waiver violation.
The Appellate Court held that a defendant confined in jail cannot willfully fail to appear in another county because he cannot appear, and the prosecution failed to present sufficient admissible evidence through uncertified court records to prove a willful failure to appear.
The case is inapplicable when a defendant is not in custody and has the physical ability to appear for sentencing, or when the prosecution presents certified court records and witness testimony to prove a willful failure to appear.
The case leaves open whether the trial court may reimpose the four-year sentence upon a proper evidentiary showing with admissible evidence.
Counsel
For Appellant: [Not determinable from opinion text], James M. Crawford
For Respondent: Office of the Attorney General, Rob Bonta, Charles C. Ragland, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Nicholas J. Webster, Amanda V. Lopez