Filed 1/13/14 P. v. Jones CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHANNON NICOLE JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B248463

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. VA125194)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger 

Ito, Judge. Affirmed.

Thomas K. Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant, Shannon Nicole Jones, appeals from the judgment 

entered following her pleas of no contest to three counts of the serious (Pen. Code,

§ 1192.7, subd. (c))1and violent (§ 667.5, subd. (c)) felony of second degree robbery

(§ 211) and her admission that, during the commission of the offenses, she personally 

used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Jones to 17 years in 

state prison. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Facts.

2

On April 21, 2012, Maria Valencia was working as a sales representative in the 

Verizon store on Telegraph Road in Santa Fe Springs. At approximately 4:30 that 

afternoon, a number of employees and one customer were in the store. Valencia, who was 

working at her desk, then saw two individuals wearing masks and carrying guns walk 

into the store. The individual who first entered, an African-American man, pointed his 

pistol “[at] everyone” and shouted at them, telling them to “hit the deck.” After Valencia 

got down on the floor behind her desk, she briefly saw the second masked person who 

had entered the store and realized, as the individual began to speak, that it was an 

African-American woman.

While the woman went to the other side of the store, the masked man asked 

Valencia if anyone was in the back room. Valencia was too frightened to say anything, 

so the store manager stated there were two people in the back. A third intruder then went 

to the door to the back room, punched in the entrance code and opened the door.

After she had been on the floor for approximately three minutes, another 

employee, Marlon Anderson, indicated the intruders had left the store. Valencia

attempted to get up but was so disturbed by the experience that she had difficulty 

breathing, was shaking and could not walk.

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2

The facts have been taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
3

David McNeil, a “business retail sales consultant” at the Santa Fe Springs Verizon 

store, was also working on the afternoon of April 21, 2012. McNeil remembered seeing 

three armed individuals, each of which was wearing a mask, a hooded jacket and latex

gloves, enter through the front door of the store. As the three talked, McNeil realized that 

one of the intruders was a woman and that she was pointing a gun in his direction. 

Although the woman told him to get back into the store, because he was halfway out the 

exit door which led to the back room, McNeil kept moving, ran through the back room 

and out the door which led to the back parking lot. As he was running through, McNeil 

heard someone open the “security door” which leads from the front of the store to the 

back room.

In the parking lot, approximately 21 feet from the back door, McNeil saw a parked 

car, with its engine running and a slender, African-American individual sitting in the 

driver’s seat. McNeil briefly glanced at the car, which was a newer model black or blue 

station wagon. 

On April 21, 2012, John Moreno was working with four other employees, 

including Anderson. Moreno remembered that at approximately 4:20 p.m. that day, he 

was at the copy machine by the back “security door.” When a man with a gun and 

wearing a mask over his face entered the store and told everyone to “ ‘get down,’ ” 

Moreno, in the “split . . . second [he] was by the door by the copier[,] . . . opened the door 

and left.” Another employee, McNeil, was just behind Moreno and Moreno “pulled 

[McNeil] out of the back door.”

As the two men ran out the door, Moreno noticed a dark-colored, small, compact 

car with an African-American man seated in the driver’s seat parked to his left. Moreno 

and McNeil continued to run until they reached a nearby gas station. There, the attendant 

gave Moreno a phone on which he called 911. As he was making the call, Moreno saw 

the car from the back of the store drive down the street. He made eye contact with the 

driver for “one-tenth of a second.” As the car windows were tinted and had been rolled 

up, Moreno could not see if there was anyone else in the car. McNeil, too, saw the 
4

station wagon being driven out of the parking lot, onto the street toward the 605 Freeway. 

As the car drove away, McNeil saw a passenger toss a latex glove out the window.

Dannia Romo was working at the Santa Fe Springs Verizon store on April 21,

2012 with several other employees, including an individual later determined to be a 

defendant, Marlon Anderson. Just before the store was going to close, two AfricanAmerican individuals, a man and a woman with their faces covered by turquoise 

handkerchiefs and their heads covered by dark hoods, entered the store, pointed guns at 

everyone in the store and told them to get down onto the floor. Romo laid on the floor 

for approximately five minutes, until one of the store employees indicated the intruders 

had left. She then got up and, although she was quite shaken, attempted to comfort the 

other employees. Anderson, who also appeared to be “shaken up,” hugged Romo.

City of Whittier Police Department Detective Jose Bolanos responded to the 911 

call directing him to the Santa Fe Springs Verizon store. The call indicated a “take-over 

robbery” had just occurred there. When he arrived, Bolanos spoke with a store 

employee, Lynn McCleandan, who told the detective that two men and a woman, all 

wearing face masks and carrying guns, had entered the store and told everyone in the 

store to get down on the ground. One of the individuals then went to the door of the 

storage room where the merchandise is kept, entered the code number and went inside. 

When McCleandan later went into the storage room, it looked as though it had been 

“ransacked.”

Bolanos viewed the store’s surveillance tape, which showed the parking lot behind 

the store. The detective saw on the tape a “black Dodge Magnum with after-market black 

five-spoke rims with a chrome lip[,] a mesh grille” and tinted windows.

Debra Stewart is the manager of the Santa Fe Springs Verizon store. After the 

robbery, she received a telephone call and went to the store, arriving at a little after 

5:00 p.m. When she walked into the store, Stewart saw a number of police officers and 

her employees, many of whom were quite distraught.

As the robbery occurred on Saturday evening and the store is not open on Sunday, 

the following Monday Stewart took inventory of all the IPhones, Tablets and other items 
5

which had been taken from the store. Based on her list of inventory, Stewart was able to 

compile a list of the serial numbers of each of the items which had been stolen. 

Stewart was again called to the store on the morning of Saturday, June 2, 2012,

because the store had been burglarized the night before.3 Stewart inspected the doors, 

windows, hinges and locks and found nothing had been broken. However the 

surveillance tape of the front of the store showed a “person [running into the store]

through the front door” at approximately 11:40 p.m. The tape from inside the store 

showed the person jump over the counter, open the door to the back room then go to the

cabinet which contained all the cell phones and place the phones in a black trash bag. In 

the meantime, the surveillance camera from the front of the store showed an individual 

bending down while keeping the front door “cracked” open. An inventory of the store 

merchandise after the burglary indicated that approximately $20,000 worth of phones and 

other electronics had been taken. Once again, Stewart was able to obtain the serial 

numbers for each of the stolen items, which she turned over to one of the police officers

investigating the matter, Whittier Police Department Detective Ryan Todd.

Stewart indicated that an individual, Marlon Anderson, was the employee who had 

been assigned to close and lock up the store on the night of June 1st. Anderson would, 

accordingly, have had custody of the key for the weekend and was supposed to give it to 

a designated employee the following Monday morning.

Stewart decided to review the surveillance tapes from April 21st. She noted that, 

immediately before the robbery, Anderson, in violation of store rules, had been texting 

someone “on his personal cell phone [while he was] on the sales floor.”

Detective Todd and his partner, Detective Robert Wolfe, work in the Santa Fe 

Springs Investigation Division. The two detectives were assigned to investigate the 

April 21st Verizon store robbery. Todd had met Anderson when, on June 6, 2012, the 

detective went to Anderson’s Anaheim home to execute a search warrant. In a bedroom 

 

3 After the April 21st robbery, the store changed its schedule and no longer opened 

on Saturdays or Sundays.
6

at the house, police officers recovered, among other items, an IPhone, over $1,000 in 

United States currency, credit card profiles of various individuals and two bronze metal 

keys which resembled keys to the Verizon store. After the search warrant had been 

executed, Anderson was taken into custody, transported to the police station and, after 

having been advised of his Miranda4rights, interviewed.

Anderson agreed to speak with Detectives Todd and Wolfe about the April 21st

robbery and the June 1st burglary. He indicated he had been approached by his cousin, 

Shannon Jones, who wanted to know if he wished to make some money by participating 

in a robbery of the Verizon store. On the day before the robbery, Jones and a cohort went 

to the store and observed an employee enter the code on the security pad to the back 

room. The code was then confirmed by Anderson. On the day of the robbery, Anderson 

was in constant contact with Jones via text messaging and, immediately before the 

robbery, Anderson texted Jones to let her know how many employees and customers

were in the store.

With regard to the June 1st burglary, Anderson indicated he unlocked the door to 

the store, then waited outside while his accomplices went inside and took the 

merchandise. After the robbery and burglary, Anderson sold the merchandise to a 

number of individuals. Anderson kept approximately $1,500 of the proceeds from the 

sales, then distributed the rest of the money to the other individuals who had participated

in the robbery and burglary.

After interviewing Anderson, the detectives questioned Jones. Before speaking 

with her, the detectives searched Jones and recovered from her pocket a cell phone which 

had been taken from the Verizon store during the April 21st robbery. The detectives 

identified the phone by comparing its serial number to the list of serial numbers of stolen 

phones provided by Stewart.

Detective Todd read to Jones her Miranda rights and she agreed to make a 

statement. Jones began by expressing her remorse and admitting she had been involved 

 

4 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
7

in the burglary. Jones stated she had been approached by her cousin, Anderson, who 

asked her if she wished to participate in the burglary of the store. Jones agreed and drove 

Anderson and another individual to the Verizon store. While she waited in the car, 

Anderson opened the door and the third individual entered the store, “grabbed the 

product,” then ran back to the car with Anderson. Jones then drove the three of them 

“away.” With regard to the April 21st robbery, Jones indicated she had known about it 

and knew the individuals involved, but had not participated in it.

The following day, on June 7, 2012, Detective Wolfe conducted a tape recorded 

interview of Jones. After Wolfe reminded Jones of her Miranda rights, she agreed to 

speak with him again. Jones again told Wolfe she was “remorseful,” then indicated she 

had been involved in the April 21st robbery. Jones stated that, after communicating 

several times with Anderson, they contacted an individual from which they rented guns 

for $250. After making certain the guns were not loaded, she and three other individuals 

went to the Verizon store.

Once she was inside the store, Jones ran to the back and “grabbed all the phones 

[from] the inventory shelves.” She and her two cohorts then ran out the back door to a 

car waiting for them. Jones indicated her share of the proceeds from the merchandise 

taken from the robbery was $1,400.

At approximately noon on June 11, 2012, Todd and Wolfe interviewed a man by 

the name of Anthony Brown. Brown, who was interviewed at the Whittier Police station, 

was advised of his Miranda rights then told the detectives that, although he had heard 

about the robbery of the Verizon store, he had not been a participant. He later, however, 

changed his story and stated he had been approached by Jones with regard to the 

April 21st robbery. He had agreed to participate in the robbery and stated that, when they 

arrived at the store, Jones “and [another] individual were the ones with the firearms and

he was the one who ran to the back of the store and grabbed the phones.” The 

merchandise was later given to Anderson. 

After viewing the surveillance tape from the back of the Verizon store, on June 13, 

2012 Todd and his partner went to an address on East 4th Street in Long Beach and spoke 
8

with a man named Isaiah Baul. Parked in front of the address was “a black Dodge 

Magnum with after-market rims and tinted windows that matched to a T the vehicle in 

the robbery video.” After the detectives searched the car and found one of the stolen 

Galaxy Tablets, Baul, who was the registered owner of the vehicle, was taken into 

custody and interviewed. After waiving his Miranda rights, Baul at first denied any 

involvement in the April 21st robbery. He then admitted that, on that day he had driven 

Jones and another individual to the Verizon store, dropped them off, then pulled around 

to the back of the store where he picked up Jones and two other persons. While he was 

waiting for Jones and her cohorts, Baul had seen two store employees run out the back of 

the store.

After Jones and the others got into the car, Baul drove them to a residence in Long 

Beach. There, “the property [taken from the store] was gone over.” Baul indicated he 

was supposed to receive payment for his participation in the robbery. However, as of the 

time of the interview, he had received nothing. He claimed the Galaxy Tablet found in 

his car belonged to a friend.

2. Procedural history.

In an information filed August 17, 2012, Jones and a number of codefendants were

charged with five counts of the serious (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)) and violent (§ 667.5, 

subd. (c)) felony of second degree robbery (§ 211) (counts 1 to 5). As to Jones, it was 

further alleged that during the commission of the robberies a principal was armed with a 

firearm, a handgun (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and she personally used a handgun

(§§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)). In the same information, Jones and a

codefendant were charged with second degree commercial burglary (§ 459) (count 7) and 

grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)) (count 8). With regard to Jones it was 

also alleged as to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 that an executed sentence imposed for any 

of the alleged felonies would be served in state prison (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3)) and that 

Jones would be subject to the provisions of the Three Strikes law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-

(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) as she had suffered a 2002 conviction for robbery (§ 211).
9

At proceedings held on August 17, 2012, Jones waived arraignment, a reading of 

the information and advisement of her constitutional and statutory rights, then entered 

pleas of not guilty to each of the counts and denied all the remaining allegations.

On February 26, 2013, Jones joined her codefendant Brown in a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to section 995 the allegations made with regard to her use of a firearm

during the robberies. However, as to her use of a firearm, the trial court indicated that 

based on its review of the motion and the transcript of the preliminary hearing, it could 

not find that “the magistrate was inappropriate or inaccurate in her decision to hold 

defendants Brown and Jones to answer . . . .” Accordingly, the trial court denied the 

section 995 motion.

For purposes of the motion to suppress evidence brought pursuant to section 

1538.5 by Jones’s codefendant Baul, Detective Wolfe testified that as part of his 

investigation of the robberies and burglary at the Verizon store he had obtained a search 

warrant for Anderson’s cell phone. Wolfe discovered several text messages from 

Anderson’s phone to another cell phone made before and after the robbery. Before the 

robbery, Anderson sent text messages indicating who was in the store and when to enter 

the store. After the robbery there was a text message regarding what merchandise had 

been taken and one regarding payment for two of the participants. It was later 

determined the texts had been sent to a cell phone owned by a man and a woman who 

lived on Esther Street in Long Beach. In view of the text messages found on his phone, 

Wolfe obtained a search warrant for Anderson’s Anaheim apartment and arrangements 

were made for surveillance of the Esther Street residence in Long Beach. On the night 

before the search warrant for Anderson’s apartment was executed, police officers 

followed Anderson after he left the Verizon store. He went to the Esther Street residence, 

where he stayed for a “brief time” before going to his apartment. The following day, as 

Anderson’s apartment was being searched, Anderson’s girlfriend, out of the presence of 

Anderson, mentioned the name “Shannon Jones.” 

Wolfe then went to Anaheim and was present when Jones and two other 

individuals were found in a car which had been stopped by police officers after driving 
10

away from the Esther Street residence. When Jones, who had been riding in the front 

passenger seat, got out of the car, she placed a cell phone on the roof of the vehicle.

Wolfe took custody of the phone and, by checking the serial number, determined it had 

been one of the phones taken from the Verizon store. Wolfe then spoke with Jones, who 

had been handcuffed and was standing on the sidewalk. Wolfe later interviewed Jones 

and, after having been advised of her Miranda rights, Jones told the detective she had 

been involved in the robbery and the burglary of the Verizon store.

In the meantime, Anderson had been transported to the station where Wolfe

interviewed him later that day. During the interview, Anderson indicated he “was pretty 

much the mastermind behind the robbery and that he had set it up.” Anderson stated 

Jones was one of the individuals involved and that she had been carrying a gun.

As part of his investigation, Wolfe had gone to the house on Esther Street and

obtained written consent from one of the residents, a Ms. Jefferson, to search the house. 

Wolfe indicated he had not obtained a warrant to search the residence because time was 

of the essence: there were a lot of people, including Jones, coming and going from the 

house. When Wolfe arrived at the residence, he told Jefferson the police were conducting 

an investigation regarding Jones, whom they believed had been involved in an incident. 

Wolfe then told Jefferson that if she would not consent to a search of the house by 

officers, Wolfe would “contain[]” the residence, which would prevent anyone from going 

into or leaving the house, while he obtained a search warrant. Jefferson, who Wolfe 

described as “extremely cooperative,” told Wolfe that, although Jones had been “kicked 

out of the house,” the officers were free to search it. Inside the house, from on top of a 

dresser, Wolfe recovered an IPhone, the serial number of which matched that of one 

taken from the Verizon store.

After receiving an anonymous tip that Baul had been involved in the crimes 

committed at the Verizon store, Wolfe performed a search of Department of Motor 

Vehicle records and determined that the vehicle used during the robbery was registered to 

Baul. Given that information and the anonymous tip, Wolfe “set up a surveillance” of 

Baul’s Long Beach residence. While Wolfe was considering attempting to obtain a 
11

warrant to search Baul’s home, “everything [seemed to] happen[] very fast.” Within 

45 minutes of the beginning of the surveillance of his home, Baul came outside, got into 

his car and drove off. At that point, Wolfe directed police officers to “pull over Baul.”

Later, Wolfe had a conversation with Baul which led to the search of Baul’s 

apartment. Wolfe told Baul he was looking for “any type of guns, any type of weapons 

[and] masks.” After telling Wolfe he did not have any of those things and that Wolfe was 

free to search, Baul apparently filled out a form given to him by Wolfe. After the search 

of his residence, Baul was placed under arrest. At that time, Wolfe checked Baul’s cell 

phone and reviewed the text messages he had sent and received.

At proceedings held on February 27, 2013, the trial court determined that, with 

regard to Jones, there was sufficient evidence “based on what [the police officers] heard 

from [Anderson’s girlfriend]” regarding Shannon Jones, the “evidence of the cell phone 

coming back to the location [where] she lived,” and evidence from other suspects which 

led to Jones, the only “female involved in [this] case,” the trial court determined “there 

was sufficient probable cause to arrest Ms. Jones” at the time she was taken into custody

and that “any fruits” found as a result of a search of Jones at that time would not be 

suppressed. Accordingly, as to Jones, the section 1538.5 motion was “denied . . . in its 

entirety.”

On March 5, 2013, the trial court indicated that, although Jones’s “exposure [in 

this matter was] over 40 years,” the People had made an offer of 18 years. In spite of the 

offer, Jones then indicated she wished to relieve her counsel of record. The trial court 

dismissed all parties from the courtroom except Jones and her counsel and held a 

Marsden5hearing. Jones then indicated she did not believe her counsel was “rocking the 

boat on [her] case at all.” Jones continued, “He’s not doing anything . . . . He doesn’t 

come to see me. We don’t strategize. I mean, the probable cause on the case is 

weak . . . .” Finally, Jones indicated her counsel had told her he did not care about her 

case.

 

5

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
12

In response, counsel stated he had been communicating with Jones about her case.

With regard to her final comment, counsel indicated that before they had left the lockup, 

Jones had advised counsel that “it would be in [his] best interest to get off [her] case, and 

[he had] advised . . . her it didn’t matter to [him] whether [he] stayed on the case or [he] 

worked the case, and [she was] making that . . . seem like [he did not] care about her” 

when, in fact, he cared about the case. Counsel then indicated that, “[a]s far as 

strategizing with her,” they had met in the conference room one or two dozen times and 

each time they had talked about the evidence and the strategy to be used in the matter. 

As far as “rocking the boat,” counsel indicated it was “just as fuzzy to [him] as it [was] to 

the court.” Counsel stated he believed Jones wanted “some magic attorney to show up 

and wave a magic wand, get rid of her strike and all the wealth of evidence in this case.”

Jones responded that, until her mother had contacted her counsel and told him to 

go speak with her, he had not come to C.R.D.F. to talk to Jones. According to Jones, 

counsel had “been wanting [her] to take the time from the time it was offered.”

The trial court determined there had not been “any fundamental breakdown in 

communication” and that counsel had been doing an “adequate job of representing 

Ms. Jones.” The court then concluded counsel would, at this point, continue to represent 

Jones. Jones then stated, “I’m not letting him represent me. I’m going pro per.” The 

trial court immediately denied Jones’s request, stating, “You’re doing it [in] response to 

my denial of your Marsden [motion]. . . . [¶] I suspect you do not know [what the issues 

are]. You want to take that on, I’ll hear it the next court date, if you want to think about 

[it]. This is an experienced defense attorney, tried many, many cases, knows exactly 

what he’s doing. You want to take it on yourself, I’m telling you . . . that would be a 

huge mistake.”

After the prosecutor and remaining defendants re-entered the courtroom, counsel 

for Jones indicated he had discussed the prosecution’s offer, which had been reduced to 

17 years, with Jones and she had indicated she needed more time to think about it.

After a recess was taken, Jones decided to enter a plea and take the People’s offer 

of 17 years in prison. After Anderson entered a plea to three counts of robbery, the 
13

prosecutor addressed Jones and stated: “You will also be pleading to . . . three counts of 

[robbery in violation of section] 211. In addition, you’ll be admitting the personal use of 

a firearm pursuant to . . . section 12022.53[, subdivision] (b). [¶] In exchange for that 

plea, you’ll be sentenced to 17 years in state prison.” After Jones indicated she 

understood the terms of the plea and was waiving her right to a jury or court trial, her 

right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against her, her right to use the 

subpoena power of the court to obtain witnesses in her defense, her right to testify in her 

own defense and her right to remain silent, also known as her right against selfincrimination, Jones pled no contest to three counts of second degree robbery in violation 

of section 211 and admitted that, during the offenses, she was personally armed with a 

firearm pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b).

At the same proceedings, the trial court sentenced Jones to the high term of five 

years in prison for her conviction of robbery as alleged in count 1 of the information and 

10 years pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b) for her personal use of a firearm 

during the offense. In addition, and consecutive thereto, the court imposed one-third the 

mid-term, or one year, for Jones’s conviction of robbery as alleged in count 2 and onethird the mid-term, or one year for the robbery alleged in count 3, for a total sentence of 

17 years in state prison. The trial court then ordered Jones to pay a $280 restitution fine 

(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a stayed $280 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $120 

court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $90 criminal conviction fee 

(Gov. Code, § 70373). Jones was awarded presentence custody credit for 272 days 

actually served and 40 days of conduct credit, for a total of 312 days. The trial court then 

dismissed counts 4, 5, 7 and 8 and recommended that Jones be placed in fire camp. Jones 

waived her appearance at the victim restitution hearing scheduled for April 8, 2013.

Jones filed a timely notice of appeal on April 29, 2013, based in part on the trial 

court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence. In addition, she contested the validity 

of her plea and asserted that her statements to police officers had been made under 

duress. For the latter two contentions, Jones requested a certificate of probable cause, 

which the trial court denied.
14

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no 

issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record. By notice 

filed October 23, 2013, the clerk of this court advised Jones to submit within 30 days any 

contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments she wished this court to consider. No 

response has been received to date.

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully 

with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

KLEIN, P. J.

CROSKEY, J.