People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 26 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | A154492 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALIJONDRO JONES, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR310886)
Appellant Alijondro Jones was convicted of first degree murder under a felony-murder theory based on his involvement in an attempted marijuana robbery that ended with the fatal shooting of Demetrius Ward. (Pen. Code, § 187, 189.)1 An allegation that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the crime was found not true. (§ 12022.53, sub. (b)-(d).) Appellant argues: (1) the judgment against him must be reversed because it was based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; (2) the jury was improperly instructed it could convict based on the testimony of a single witness when the testimony of the primary witness was accomplice testimony requiring corroboration; (3) the flight instruction was unsupported by the evidence; (4) recent changes to the felony-murder rule with respect to aiders and abettors require reversal of the murder conviction; (5) the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal; (6) the court's imposition of a restitution fine without a finding of appellant's ability to pay violated due process; and (7) the court must review in camera records which the trial court reviewed under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We affirm.
At about 1:30 a.m. on October 6, 2014, Vacaville police responded to a 911 call about a shooting at the Canyon Creek Apartments. They found 18-year-old Demetrius Ward in the front seat of his truck, alive but not conscious, with a gunshot wound in his neck. A Ziplock bag with marijuana was found inside the truck, and a 45-caliber shell casing was found on the ground a few feet away from the truck. Ward was taken to the hospital where he died. The murder weapon was never found.
Kai Hughes, who was also 18 years old and had placed the 911 call, was holding Ward around the shoulders when police responded to the scene of the shooting. The police took Hughes to the police station, where she had a panic attack and passed out; she woke up in the hospital. When Hughes found out Ward had died, she tried to hang herself and was placed in a mental health facility for a few days. Hughes told conflicting stories about what had happened, but eventually told police that Ward had been shot by appellant during a botched marijuana robbery.
During the months preceding the shooting, Hughes had frequently associated with appellant, Dezmon Frazier, Toriano Byrd, Rhianna Cea and Rick Paraiso. They smoked marijuana, did other drugs. The group frequently congregated at the home of Aimee Sabedra and her four young children in the Canyon Creek Apartments. Hughes sold drugs for Frazier, who was on the run from the police. Hughes was also good friends with Ward, whom she used to date.
Before midnight on October 5, 2014, Hughes was at the home of her auntie, who lived about five minutes away from Sabedra. She received a message from Ward via Twitter asking "[w]ho needs weed." Through text messages, Ward told her he had a high-quality strain of marijuana to sell and Hughes told him she wanted to buy it. Hughes did not have the money, but led him to think she did. Ward arranged to come pick her up.
Hughes made a series of phone calls to Frazier and Byrd saying she wanted them to steal Ward's marijuana. Ward picked her up and she directed him to the Canyon Creek Apartments, falsely claiming she had left her purse with money there. Ward told her he would not sell his marijuana for less than $180. He pulled into the complex and waited, while Hughes went inside to Sabedra's apartment.
When Hughes arrived, Sabedra was asleep with her son in the living room. Hughes went to the back bedroom and found appellant, Frazier and Byrd inside smoking marijuana and doing other drugs. Paraiso came into the room and the group discussed a plan to rob Ward. Hughes texted Ward and asked whether he would take $150; he indicated that $180 was the price. Byrd, who was carrying a gun in a shoulder holster, said he did not want to be involved. Appellant and Paraiso volunteered to do the robbery, and appellant grabbed Byrd's gun. Byrd tried to take the clip out of the gun, but appellant said he would need it.
Appellant and Paraiso went outside and walked toward Ward's truck, followed by Hughes. Hughes stayed back and ducked behind a bush. She heard "muffled" arguing, then heard a gunshot and saw a bright light. Paraiso came running, grabbed her shirt and told her to "come on." Hughes followed him into Sabedra's apartment and appellant walked in a few seconds later. They went back to the bedroom occupied by Frazier and Byrd and appellant said Ward
Appellant told the group he did not get the marijuana or the bullet casing. Hughes texted Ward, "Here I come," and told the others she was going out to pick up the casing. When she found Ward injured in the truck, she called 911 and told them her "brother" had been shot. She did not disclose the robbery plan to police initially.
After the shooting, Sabedra was shaken awake on her mattress in the living room. She was "groggy" and "not really aware" of what was going on. Someone threw a heavy bundle on her lap and told her to hide it; she took the bundle to her upstairs neighbor's apartment and placed it under the couch. Sabedra returned to her apartment, where Frazier seemed angry and appellant was joking around. She decided to go to the convenience store down the road and took appellant with her. She planned to drive her car, but yellow police tape blocked her car in the parking lot, so they walked. Appellant said he had "blasted that fool because he wouldn't give it up," then laughed. Five to ten minutes after they entered the store, appellant gave Sabedra a hug, got into a car driven by a woman and left. About 27 minutes had passed since police were dispatched to the Ward shooting. Appellant and Sabedra were captured on the store's surveillance camera.
Frazier told Sabedra to get the object she had hidden. She retrieved the bundle and saw it was Byrd's gun. When police interviewed Sabedra, she told them appellant was the shooter. She consistently told police appellant was the shooter, but initially told them she had hidden the gun in some bushes outside.
Police arrested Hughes for Ward's murder and arrested Sabedra for being an accessory after the fact. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 32.) Both agreed to testify against appellant and entered into immunity agreements. Hughes pled guilty to one count of attempted robbery and admitted a weapon use enhancement, the murder count against her was dismissed, and she was to be sentenced to a term of no more than four years. Sabedra pled guilty to one count of accessory after the fact with no jail time and the dismissal of an unrelated misdemeanor charge.
Appellant was charged by information with the murder of Ward and the personal use of a firearm was alleged. Hughes testified as the primary prosecution witness at appellant's trial, and was the only percipient witness to the discussions concerning the marijuana robbery and to the shooting. Sabedra testified and denied being awake until after the shooting was committed, but she described hiding the gun and testified that appellant told her during their trip to the convenience store that he "blasted that fool because he wouldn't give it up." Appellant's primary defense was that there was no physical evidence linking him to the shooting and that Hughes's status as an accomplice to the murder and Sabedra's status as an accessory after the fact rendered their testimony inherently unreliable.
The jury was instructed on first degree felony murder and told that appellant could be guilty under this theory if a coparticipant committed the fatal act.2 The jury convicted appellant of first degree felony murder but found not true an allegation that he had personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. Appellant was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life, along with a consecutive three-year term for a separate case for which he was on felony probation at the time of the murder.
Appellant argues the evidence against him was insufficient to support the murder count because Hughes's testimony was the primary evidence linking him to the crime and it was insufficiently corroborated under section 1111. We disagree.
Section 1111 states, "A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." "Thus, for the jury to rely on an accomplice's testimony about the circumstances of an offense, it must find evidence that ' "without aid from the accomplice's testimony, tend[s] to connect the defendant with the crime." ' " (People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 32 (Romero and Self).) Section 1111 "is based on the Legislature's determination that ' "because of the reliability questions posed by" ' accomplice testimony, such testimony ' "by itself is insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction." ' " (Ibid.)
We apply well established principles of law to evaluate the corroboration of accomplice testimony. Corroborative evidence need not directly connect the accused with the offense but need only "tend" to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial