PEOPLE V. JONES PART-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE V</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >PEOPLE V. JONES</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 9/3/10<br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u>CERTIFIED<br /> FOR PUBLICATION</u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/><u> </u><br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Yolo)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JONES, SR.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=230 valign=top ><br /> <br/>C059440<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No.<br /> <br/>04-6100)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE <br /> FROM PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>III<br /> <br/><i<br /> >Effective Assistance of Counsel</i><br /> <br/> Defendant contends<br /> that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney at<br /> trial did not argue for concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentencing on<br /> counts 1 and 2. We conclude that the<br /> contention is without merit because counsel's performance did not fall below an<br /> objective standard of reasonableness. <br /> <br/> To establish<br /> ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) counsel's<br /> performance was deficient and fell below an objective standard of<br /> reasonableness and (2) it is reasonably probable that a more favorable result<br /> would have been reached absent the deficient performance. (<i>Strickland<br /> v. Washington</i> (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-694].) A reasonable probability is a â€