1

Filed 2/26/15 P. v. Rones CA1/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

VINCENT ANDREW RONES, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 A142891 

 (Sonoma County 

 Super. Ct. No. SCR-632713) 

Vincent Rones appeals from a judgment following his no contest pleas as a result 

of a negotiated disposition. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and his 

notice of appeal indicates that he is appealing his sentence and other matters occurring 

after the entry of his plea. Rones’ court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our 

independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no 

issues requiring further review and affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

 A Santa Rosa police officer was checking on a local motel room after the staff 

reported seeing several people coming and going from the room. Rones was there with 

five women. After brief interaction with some of the women the officer suspected that 

they were involved in prostitution. A check indicated that Rones had an outstanding 

warrant from Pennsylvania for prostitution-related charges. 
2

 It was later discovered that two of the women had recently come to California 

after meeting Rones over the internet. They both came thinking Rones would get them 

work as exotic dancers, but once they arrived they learned that he was directing a 

prostitution ring and they became a part of it. The women paid Rones all the money they 

got from men for sex, and each had a turn sleeping and having sex with Rones on a 

regular basis. The women participated in the prostitution and slept with Rones because 

they were afraid of him and he could be violent with them. 

 Rones was charged in an information with two counts of rape by force or fear in 

violation of Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(2),1

 two counts of making criminal 

threats in violation of section 422, subdivision (a), two counts of human trafficking in 

violation of section 236.1, subdivision (b), and two counts of pimping in violation of 

section 266h, subdivision (a). A prior strike was alleged under section 1170.12 and a 

prior serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). 

 Pursuant to an agreed disposition, Rones entered an Alford/West no contest plea to 

a single count of making a criminal threat and no contest pleas to two counts of pimping.2

 

He admitted the prior felony allegation under section 1170.12. The remaining counts 

were dismissed. 

 At sentencing defense counsel moved to strike the prior conviction and Rones 

moved pro se to withdraw his plea. The court denied both motions. In accordance with 

the plea, Rones was sentenced to prison for 14 years and 8 months, consisting of 6 years 

for pimping (§ 266h), doubled due to the prior serious felony conviction, plus a 

concurrent one-third of the mid-term sentence of 2 years eight months for criminal threats 

(§ 422, subd. (a)). The court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine, a $10,000 suspended 

 1

Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

2

These cases authorize a defendant to enter a guilty plea and still maintain her 

innocence, provided that there is a factual basis for the plea. (North Carolina v. Alford 

(1970) 400 U.S. 25; People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595.) 
3

parole revocation fine and appropriate fees. Rones was awarded 908 days of presentence credit. His appeal was timely. 

DISCUSSION 

 The record does not include a request for a certificate of probable cause, and 

Rones’ notice of appeal indicated it is based on his sentence or other matters occurring 

after the plea. There was no error. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Rones’ motion to withdraw his plea or to strike his prior conviction. Moreover, Rones 

was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition leading to his plea. Our 

review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing. 

 Counsel has represented to us that he advised Rones of his intention to file a 

Wende brief in this case and of Rones’ right to submit supplemental argument on his own 

behalf. He has not done so. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 
4

 _________________________ 

 Siggins, J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

McGuiness, P.J. 

_________________________ 

Pollak, J.