People v. Jones

• Decision Date: 23 December 2022
• Docket Number: A162634
• Citation: 86 Cal.App.5th 1076,302 Cal.Rptr.3d 847
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alijondro JONES, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

86 Cal.App.5th 1076

302 Cal.Rptr.3d 847

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Alijondro JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

A162634

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

Filed December 23, 2022

Jonathan Soglin, San Francisco, and Lauren E. Dodge, By appointment of the First District Court of Appeal under the First District Appellate Project, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria Ratnikova and Christen Somerville, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

WISEMAN, J.^*

Alijondro Jones appeals from an order denying his motion for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 after he was convicted of first degree murder under a felony-murder theory. The court found him ineligible for relief because he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. On appeal, Jones contends (1) the trial court was precluded from relying on evidence that he was the actual shooter because the jury found not true the allegations that he personally used a firearm; (2) insufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination that he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life; (3) the trial court erred in not considering his youth as a factor in making that determination; and (4) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by not raising the "collateral estoppel" argument and by not raising the issue of Jones's youth after the court's ruling. In a supplemental opening brief, Jones contends the order must be reversed due to a recent decision in this appellate district, People v. Cooper (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 393, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 ( Cooper ).

Because of the unusual circumstances of this case, including the fact that the trial court's ruling occurred before our decision in In re Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 434, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ( Moore ), we cannot presume from the record that the trial court considered evidence of Jones's youth, which Moore held to be "a relevant factor" in deciding whether a defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. ( Id . at p. 454, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 584, italics added.) For this reason, and without suggesting that Jones's age and maturity level will necessarily affect the outcome of the trial court's determination, we will remand for the court's consideration of all relevant factors consistent with prevailing law.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Shooting Underlying Jones's Murder Conviction

As we summarized in our prior opinion affirming Jones's conviction, the essential facts pertaining to his crime were as follows. (See People v. Jones (Dec. 26, 2019, A154492) [nonpub. opn.] [2019 WL 7290836, 2019 Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 8611] ( Jones ).)¹

At approximately 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, unconscious and 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. Ward was taken to the hospital, where he died. The murder weapon was never found.

The 911 call was placed by Kai Hughes, who was also 18 years old. After providing conflicting stories about what happened, she eventually told police that Ward was shot by Jones during a botched marijuana robbery.

In the months before the shooting, Hughes had associated with Jones as well as with Dezmon Frazier (for whom she sold drugs), Toriano Byrd (referred to by respondent and the trial court as "Boyd"), Rhianna Cea, and Rick Paraiso. They frequented the home of Aimee Sabedra in the Canyon Creek Apartments and used drugs together. Hughes was also good friends with victim Ward, her former boyfriend.

Before midnight on October 5, 2014, Hughes was at her aunt's home. She received a message from Ward via Twitter asking "[w]ho needs weed." Through text messages, Ward told her he had high-quality marijuana to sell and Hughes told him she wanted to buy it, indicating (falsely) that she had the money. Ward arranged to pick her up. Hughes called Frazier and Byrd, saying she wanted them to steal Ward's marijuana.

Ward picked up Hughes, and she directed him to the Canyon Creek Apartments, falsely claiming she had left her purse with money there. He pulled into the apartment complex and waited while Hughes went into Sabedra's apartment.

In the apartment, Sabedra was asleep. In a bedroom, Jones, Frazier and Byrd were smoking marijuana and using other drugs. After Paraiso joined the group, they 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. Jones and Paraiso volunteered to commit the robbery; Jones grabbed Byrd's gun, and when Byrd tried to remove the clip, Jones insisted on taking it, saying he would need it.

Jones and Paraiso walked toward Ward's truck. Hughes followed and ducked behind a bush. From there, she heard "muffled" arguing and then heard a gunshot and saw a bright light. Paraiso came running and took her back to Sabedra's apartment. Jones walked in a few seconds later. According to Hughes, Jones said that Ward "told me I needed to shoot him for his weed. I don't know who he thought he was so I shot him."

After Jones said he had not gotten the marijuana or the bullet casing, Hughes texted Ward, "Here I come," and told the others she was going to pick up the casing. When she found Ward injured in the truck, she called 911 and said her "brother" had been shot.

After the shooting, Sabedra was shaken awake. 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 a couch. Sabedra returned to her apartment, where Jones was joking. Sabedra walked with Jones to a convenience store; along the way, Jones told Sabedra he had "blasted that fool because he wouldn't give it up" and laughed.

Frazier later told Sabedra to retrieve the object she had hidden. She got the bundle and saw it was Byrd's gun. When police interviewed Sabedra, she told them Jones was the shooter.

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 Jones and entered into immunity agreements. Hughes pled guilty to one count of attempted robbery and admitted a weapon use enhancement, and the murder count against her was dismissed. Sabedra pled guilty to one count of accessory after the fact with no jail time and the dismissal of an unrelated misdemeanor charge.

B. Prosecution of Jones

An information charged Jones with Ward's murder ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ) and alleged that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).²

At Jones's trial, Hughes testified as the primary prosecution witness and was the only percipient witness to the discussions concerning the marijuana robbery and to the shooting. Sabedra testified that she was asleep during the shooting, but she described hiding the gun and testified that Jones told her during their trip to the convenience store that he "blasted that fool because he wouldn't give it up."

Jones'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 Jones could be guilty under this theory if a coparticipant committed the fatal act. The jury convicted Jones of first degree felony murder but found not true the allegation that he had personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). (The jury did not return verdicts on the personal and intentional discharge allegations under section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (d), because the verdict forms instructed the jury to return findings on those allegations only if it found true the personal use allegation.)

Jones 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. We affirmed the judgment in December 2019.

C. Jones's Petition for Resentencing

In 2018, Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) was enacted to "amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); see People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 814, 477 P.3d 539.) It accomplished this by, among other things, amending section 189 such that murder liability is not imposed on persons convicted of felony murder unless they were the actual killer, an aider and abettor who acted with intent to kill, or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

SB 1437 also created section 1170.95, which established a procedure for defendants convicted of murder under the old law to seek resentencing in the trial court if they believe they could not be convicted of that crime given the above amendment to section 189. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.)

In December 2020, Jones filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered as section...