1

Filed 10/21/20 P. v. Jones CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAKE JONES, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C090133

(Super. Ct. Nos. 17F6607, 

15F6619)

Following numerous reinstatements, the trial court revoked and terminated the 

probation of defendant Jake Jones, Jr., in his two Shasta County cases and ordered his 

suspended prison sentence executed. Defendant contends the court abused its discretion 

when it revoked his probation because his violations were not willful and were de 

minimis. Disagreeing, we affirm the judgment.
2

BACKGROUND

Procedural History

In 2015 (the 2015 case) defendant pleaded no contest to one count of unlawfully 

driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, count 1) and one (misdemeanor) count 

of driving under the influence (id., § 23152, subd. (e), count 5), and admitted a prior 

strike allegation (Pen. Code, § 1170.12).1 The trial court suspended imposition of 

sentence and granted him three years of probation. 

From July 2016 through October 2017, the Shasta County probation department 

(Shasta probation) filed five petitions to revoke defendant’s probation in the 2015 case 

based upon a variety of alleged violations that included multiple failures to report, failure 

to submit monthly reports, failure to return to Shasta County after travel, failure to charge 

his ankle monitor, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and resisting an officer. A warrant 

was issued for all but one petition because defendant failed to appear for the hearings. In 

total, defendant admitted to four violations, and after each admission the trial court 

placed him back on probation. 

While still on probation in the 2015 case, in December 2017 defendant was 

charged with assault with a deadly weapon (count 1) and assault with force likely to 

cause great bodily injury (count 2), with a prior strike conviction and prior prison term 

(§§ 245, subds. (a)(1), (a)(4), 667.5, subd. (a), 1170.12). A petition to revoke probation 

in the 2015 case was filed due to the 2017 charges (the 2017 case). 

Defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 in the 2017 case and admitted violating 

probation in the 2015 case, in exchange for a probationary sentence and dismissal of the 

remaining counts and allegations in the 2017 case and reinstatement of probation in the 

2015 case. On February 21, 2018, the trial court imposed and stayed a sentence of four 

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

years in prison for the 2017 case and eight months consecutive for the 2015 case. The 

court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations and placed defendant on probation 

in both cases. 

Specifics of Probation Violations

On April 18, 2018, defendant obtained permission from Shasta probation to travel 

to Fresno for one month; he failed to report back as required. On August 9, 2018, he was 

charged in Fresno with resisting an officer. On August 20, 2018, while defendant was in 

custody in Fresno, Shasta probation petitioned to revoke defendant’s probation in the 

2017 case based on two alleged violations: (1) defendant had not reported to probation 

since April 18, 2018, and (2) defendant had not submitted a written report to probation 

since April 18, 2018. Defendant did not appear at the hearing on the petition and a bench 

warrant issued. 

Defendant, who apparently suffers from bipolar disorder and had not been taking 

his antipsychotic medication, was deemed incompetent in Fresno and transferred to a 

state hospital from October 2018 to April 2019. He was then deemed competent and 

pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor count; he was ordered released at his sentencing on 

May 20, 2019, having already served his sentence. On June 3, 2019, defendant reported 

to Shasta probation and was sent to the Shasta County jail due to his active warrants. 

Defendant admitted to both violations of probation on June 11, and was sentenced 

the next month. At sentencing, defendant argued that he was not “willfully in violation” 

because he was deemed incompetent in Fresno. The trial court commented on the “great 

difficulty with this decision” but noted that defendant “certainly had a great amount of 

time to cooperate.” The court revoked probation and ordered the stayed prison sentence 

executed. Defendant timely appealed in both cases. 
4

DISCUSSION

Defendant heads his sole argument on appeal as a lack of substantial evidence of a 

willful violation and argues abuse of discretion in the trial court’s execution of the prison 

sentence. Characterizing his violations and “not willful under the circumstances” and “de 

minimis,” he argues that his failure to report was due solely to circumstances beyond his 

control while in Fresno and that “there was no evidence that [he] was not ready and 

willing to comply with probation at the time of revocation.” 

The Attorney General points out that defendant was free from custody in Fresno 

for four months after his permission to travel expired, and he did not comply with 

probation conditions at that time; further, while involved in his Fresno case he was 

represented by counsel, but there is no evidence he attempted to contact Shasta probation 

or resolve his warrants in the 2017 and 2015 cases. The Attorney General also points to 

defendant’s extensive history of noncompliance on probation and lengthy criminal 

history to justify the trial court’s decision to terminate probation. In reply, defendant 

argues mitigation based on his substance abuse issues and a claim of provocation in the 

2017 (assault) case. 

In a probation revocation proceeding, the People need prove a probation violation 

by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 446-

447.) “We review the trial court’s probation revocation order for an abuse of discretion. 

[Citations.] The trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. 

[Citations].” (People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.) “ ‘[O]nly in a very 

extreme case should an appellate court interfere with the discretion of the trial court in 

the matter of denying or revoking probation.’ ” (Rodriguez, at p. 443.)

Applying the required standard of review, we see no abuse of discretion here. 

Defendant was permitted to travel to Fresno from April 18, 2018, to May 19, 2018. The 

terms of his probation required that he report back to Shasta probation at the end of the 

month and continue submitting his monthly written reports. He failed to return in May, 
5

and failed to submit monthly reports for May, June, or July, all prior to his arrest in 

August 2018. Thus defendant had committed both violations prior to his incarceration. 

Further, defendant had the opportunity to inform Shasta probation, either for himself or 

through his attorney, of his whereabouts during his incarceration and treatment, yet he 

failed to do so even after his competency was restored. Defendant’s failure to report to 

probation in any capacity for over 13 months, including the nearly four months prior to 

his arrest in Fresno, supports a conclusion, demonstrated by the preponderance of the 

evidence, that the violations were willful and that they were not de minimis. This 

conclusion is further bolstered by defendant’s history of multiple probation violations, 

which includes several failures to return or report to probation.

Defendant relies on People v. Buford (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 975, but that case is 

distinguishable. In Buford there was insufficient evidence the probation officer informed 

the defendant of his duty to report monthly, and the evidence showed that the defendant 

attempted to schedule a new appointment on the rare instances he did not report. (Id. at 

p. 985.) Here, unlike in Buford, there is substantial evidence that defendant was informed 

of his duty to report monthly, and that defendant made no effort to fulfill that obligation 

for over a year, including during extensive periods of time where there is no evidence 

whatsoever that he was in any way constrained or impeded from doing so.

The uncontradicted evidence of the nature and context of defendant’s admitted 

probation violations, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order, provides 

ample support for the order revoking probation and refusing reinstatement. There was no 

abuse of discretion.
6

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

 /s/

Hull, Acting P. J.

 /s/

Murray, J.