P.v. Jones
In January and February 2007, there was a series of robberies of stores in the Riverside-San Bernardino area. Each robbery was committed by three African-American men. Their faces were covered; two wore bandannas, and the third generally wore a distinctive “Scream†mask. Thus, even though there was security video footage of each robbery, the men’s identities could not be determined from the videos alone.
After the last such robbery, on February 13, 2007, the robbers’ getaway car crashed during a police pursuit. Two of the robbers were captured; the third robber escaped, but further investigation revealed that he was defendant Valen Andrew Jones. Ultimately, defendant pleaded guilty to the February 13 robbery. His cohorts pleaded guilty to that and to five earlier robberies.
In this case, defendant was charged with 11 counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and 10 counts of forcible false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236), all arising out of the first five robberies. The prosecution introduced evidence of the sixth and final robbery, to which defendant had already pleaded guilty, as evidence of identity.
The jury hung on all counts relating to one of the charged robberies; it found defendant guilty on all counts relating to the remainder (a total of nine counts of robbery and three counts of forcible false imprisonment). In connection with each count, the jury found that a principal was armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1).)
Defendant was sentenced to 17 years 8 months, plus the usual fines and fees.
Defendant now contends that the trial court erred by:
1. Denying defendant’s motion to strike evidence of the final robbery.
2. Finding that defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation.
3. Sentencing defendant based on a stale probation report.
We will hold that the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of the final robbery. Because the final robbery was similar, in many respects, to the charged robberies, it was relevant and, indeed, crucial evidence of defendant’s identity as one of the participants in the charged robberies.
We will also hold that the trial court did err by finding that defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation and by failing to obtain a supplemental probation report but that these errors were harmless. Hence, we will affirm.
Comments on P.v. Jones