Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Jones

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: B337778

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/17/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B337778
(Super. Ct. Nos. 23F-07385)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

FRELAND BRIAN JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

A defendant confined in jail in county one, cannot willfully
fail to appear, as ordered, in county two. Such a defendant does
not “fail” to appear. He cannot appear. He should not suffer a
penalty for not appearing.
Freland Brian Jones appeals a judgment following his no
contest plea to corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant, (Pen.
Code, 1 273.5 subd. (f)(1), a felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement
and People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247 (Cruz), the trial court
agreed to impose a sentence of probation provided inter alia that
appellant would appear at a future sentencing hearing. If he did

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless

otherwise stated.

1
not appear for sentencing it would sentence him to four years in
prison. Appellant did not appear at his sentencing hearing
because he was in jail on another case in another county. The
trial court found appellant violated his Cruz waiver obligations
by willfully failing to attend the sentencing hearing. It imposed a
four-year prison sentence. As indicated, he did not willfully fail
to appear. In addition, the prosecutor did not present sufficient
evidence to show appellant willfully failed to appear for
sentencing.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 5, 2023, appellant entered a no contest plea
to count 1 corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant, and to count 2
violating a court order. The trial court accepted a negotiated plea
with a proposed sentence of felony probation. The judge advised
appellant that if he did not return for sentencing or “committed a
new law violation while you’re out pending sentencing, you could
be sentenced to up to four years in state prison.” 2
Appellant did not appear for the January 16, 2024
sentencing hearing. The trial court indicated it would issue a
warrant. Appellant’s defense counsel told the court appellant
was in custody in Fresno. “[T]his is not a willful failure to
appear.” The court responded, “So I will issue and hold the
warrant.”
On May 7, 2024, the court held a hearing on the alleged
violation. The prosecutor did not present any witnesses. She
claimed appellant violated his Cruz waiver by not attending the
sentencing hearing because he pled guilty to an offense pursuant
to section 166, subdivision (c)(1) in Fresno County. “[T]he offense

2 This second condition is something in addition to a

traditional “Cruz” waiver.

2
date being January 9, 2024.” The prosecutor claimed she could
prove the violation with four exhibits, a California Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) report, and
three documents from the Fresno superior court.
Appellant’s counsel argued that a Cruz waiver violation
had not taken place. He said the conviction “was from [an]
incident that preexisted or predated the Cruz waiver violation.”
Appellant’s counsel claimed the prosecutor was trying to
introduce inadmissible hearsay, the CLETS record did not show
the alleged conviction, and that the three Fresno superior court
documents were not certified court records.
The trial court ruled, “I am finding a violation of the Cruz
waiver.” Because of that, “I am going to deviate from the plea
agreement.” Appellant was sentenced to a four-year prison term.
“Cruz Waiver”
In People v. Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.3d at page 1249, our
Supreme Court held a defendant who pleads guilty pursuant to a
plea bargain that is subsequently disapproved by the trial court
for the defendant’s failure to appear is entitled to withdraw his or
her plea. But “if the defendant willfully fails to appear for
sentencing the trial court may withdraw its approval of the
defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the
bargained-for term. Any such waiver, of course, would have to be
obtained at the time of the trial court’s initial acceptance of the
plea, and it must be knowing and intelligent.” (Id., at p. 1254, fn.
5, italics added.)
At the time of the plea hearing, appellant was advised that
if he did not appear for sentencing he could be subject to a
sentence of four years in prison. He agreed to those terms.

3
Whether he willfully failed to appear for sentencing was an issue
of fact that had to be proved.
Willful Failure To Appear
The People had the burden to prove by admissible evidence
that appellant willfully failed to appear for sentencing. (People v.
Quarterman (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1292; People v.
Lizarraga (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 815, 820 (Lizarraga).)
Appellant contends his non-appearance was not willful
because it involved “circumstances beyond his . . . control.”
(People v. Cervantes (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 291, 295.) The
People argued that appellant was in jail because he committed a
crime after the date of the initial plea hearing in San Luis Obispo
County, and he therefore willfully failed to appear because that
conduct involved circumstances under his control. Appellant’s
counsel disputed the prosecutor’s claims that he committed a
crime after the plea hearing and he objected saying the
prosecutor failed to present any admissible evidence to support
its claim.
The prosecutor did not present a witness or file any
declarations. Instead, the only “proof” offered was based upon
four documents. The prosecutor presented a CLETS rap sheet
document that was received by the District Attorney’s Office
(Exhibit 1), a plea form (Exhibit 2), an information sheet (Exhibit
3) and a minute order from a Fresno superior court (Exhibit 4).
Appellant’s counsel specifically objected to the CLETS
document because it did not show a conviction and the case
numbers were different from the case number on the court
documents the People wanted to introduce. The prosecutor
conceded that the CLETS document did not show a conviction
and it was not currently up to date. Consequently, it did not

4
prove what the prosecutor claimed it would prove. The defense
objection to Exhibit 1 was meritorious.
Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were noncertified records from a Fresno
superior court. “Our Supreme Court has indicated that the
contents of uncertified records alone cannot be sufficient to
support a finding of authenticity.” (People v. Gonzalez (2019) 42
Cal.App.5th 1144, 1151 (Gonzalez).) Using uncertified court
records are not sufficient “to satisfy the prosecutor’s burden of
establishing the documents were authentic conviction records
. . . .” (Ibid.)
The prosecutor apparently believed that presenting
noncertified court documents was sufficient, by itself, to use as
admissible prima facie evidence against appellant. But our
Supreme Court has rejected that claim by holding a “noncertified
copy, by itself, is not reliable enough to constitute such prima
facie evidence.” (People v. Skiles (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1178, 1186-
1187, (Skiles) italics added.)
Consequently, the defense objection to the admission of
those three uncertified court records should have been sustained
and the trial court erred by admitting them. (Skiles, supra, 51
Cal.4th at p. 1187; People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059,
1066 [“ ‘[The] trier of fact is entitled to draw reasonable
inferences from certified records . . . .’ ”]; Gonzalez, supra, 42
Cal.App.5th at p. 1151 [“the trial court erred in admitting
uncertified, unauthenticated exhibits as proof that appellant
suffered a prior conviction”]; People v. Haney (1999) 26
Cal.App.4th 472, 475; Lizarraga, supra, 43 Cal.App.3rd at p. 820;
People v. Cuevas (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 901, 909 [uncertified
court records were not admissible]; § 969b.)

5
Moreover, “the use of a record of a prior conviction to prove
any fact other than the fact of conviction violates the Sixth
Amendment.” (People v. Garcia (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 123, 171.)
“The date of the commission of a crime is a fact that ‘can be
primarily established only by witnesses.’ ” (Id. at p. 172.) The
prosecutor failed to produce any witnesses or other evidence. The
trial court consequently erred by admitting the uncertified
documents, by finding a willful failure to appear for sentencing
and by sentencing appellant to four years in prison. This does
not “end” the matter. Upon a proper evidentiary showing, the
trial court may again impose the four-year prison term. (Cf.,
People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535, 550.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to
superior court for proceedings consistent with this opinion’s
statements of law.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

We concur:

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.

6
Matthew G. Guerrero, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

---

James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Nicholas J. Webster and Amanda V.
Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.