People v. Jones

Decision Date19 January 2017
Docket NumberB263800
Citation7 Cal.App.5th 787,213 Cal.Rptr.3d 167
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tramel Ray JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel G. Koryn, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Kathleen Kenealy, Acting Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Roberta L. Davis and Corey J. Robbins, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

ZELON, J.

Tramel Ray Jones appeals from his judgment of conviction of one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a) ) and two counts of attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a) ), with true findings on related firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (d), (e)(1)) and gang enhancements (§ 186.22., subd. (b)(1)). Jones, who was 16 years old at the time of the alleged crimes, raises the following arguments on appeal: (1) the prosecution improperly exercised its peremptory challenges to excuse African–American prospective jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (Batson ) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (Wheeler ); (2) the trial court erred in admitting Jones's pretrial statement to the police in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process; and (3) Jones's aggregate sentence of 80 years to life in state prison violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm and remand with directions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. The Charges

In a March 10, 2014 information, the Los Angeles District Attorney charged Jones with three counts of attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a) ) [counts 1 through 3], one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246) [count 4], and one count of murder (§ 187 ) [count 5]. As to each count, it was alleged that Jones committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, and with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members within the meaning of section 186.22, subd. (b)(1). It also was alleged that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offenses within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (c), (d), and (e)(1). Jones pled not guilty to each count and denied the enhancement allegations.

II. The Evidence at Trial
A. The November 21, 2012 Shooting [Counts 1–2]

In counts 1 and 2, Jones was charged with the attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murders of Early Smith and Demajah Strawn. On November 21, 2012, at around 11:00 p.m., Smith and Strawn were walking on 110th Street near Budlong Avenue in Los Angeles. The area was claimed by a gang known as the Hoover Criminals. Neither Smith nor Strawn were gang members or carrying a weapon. While walking to Smith's home, they passed by an apartment building where a group of men and women were gathered outside. The group dispersed as Smith and Strawn walked by, but no words were exchanged. Moments later, a young Black man in a white t-shirt approached Smith and Strawn from behind and fired multiple shots at them with a handgun. One of the bullets struck Smith in the buttocks and groin area. None of the shots hit Strawn. Eight .40 caliber casings were recovered from the scene shortly after the shooting.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Derek White later interviewed Smith and Strawn about the shooting and showed them photo arrays that included Jones. Smith stated that he never saw the shooter and could not make an identification. Strawn provided a general description of the shooter, but also stated that he did not get a good look at his face. When shown the photo array, Strawn indicated that Jones looked "familiar." Strawn was not certain if Jones looked familiar from the shooting, but at one point, he told Detective White that Jones was "possibly the shooter." Strawn also told the detective that he had seen Jones in the area a second time after the shooting occurred.

At trial, neither Smith nor Strawn identified Jones as the shooter. Both men testified that they started running as soon as the shots were fired, and that they never saw the shooter's face. Strawn also testified that Jones was familiar to him because he had seen Jones in the area a few weeks before the shooting, but did not see him any time afterward. Strawn admitted that he did not want to testify at trial because he was afraid of retaliation from the Hoover gang.

B. The February 12, 2013 Shooting [Counts 3–4]

In counts 3 and 4, Jones was charged with the attempted willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder of an unidentified victim, John Doe, and with shooting at an occupied vehicle. Both counts arose out of a shooting that occurred on February 12, 2013 in the area of 112th Street and Budlong Avenue. On that date, at around 7:15 p.m., Derrick Jackson and his son, Jerrick, were at the home of Jackson's mother. While Jackson and Jerrick were standing near the front porch of the residence, three young Black men approached them. One of the men asked Jerrick where he was from, and Jerrick answered that he was not in a gang. The men walked away from the residence toward the street. A dark-colored car then drove by, followed by a red car. The three men yelled "Hoover" at one of the passing cars and walked into the middle of the street. One of the men fired a gun multiple times in the direction of that car. All three men then ran from the area. Six .40 caliber casings were recovered from the scene shortly after the shooting. The driver of the car that appeared to be the target of the shooting was never identified.

John Marshall was on the front porch of his residence near 112st Street and Budlong Avenue at the time of the shooting. In an interview with the police at the scene, Marshall provided a physical description of the three men that he had seen yelling "Hoover" at a passing car immediately before the shooting began. At trial, however, Marshall denied that he had witnessed the shooting or had described any of the suspects to the police. Jackson also was interviewed by the police and was later shown a photo array that included Jones. Jackson was able to provide a physical description of two of the suspects, but could not identify anyone in the photos. Both Jackson and Marshall were aware of gang violence in the area where the shooting occurred and were reluctant to testify at trial because of fear of retaliation.

C. Police Investigation of the November 21, 2012 and February 12, 2013 Shootings
1. Physical Evidence

On March 1, 2013, the police executed a search warrant at the apartment of Jones's father, located in the same area where the November 21, 2012 and February 12, 2013 shootings occurred. During the search, the police forced entry into a locked bedroom where they found Jones's father. Inside the bedroom, the police recovered a loaded .40 caliber Glock handgun, a loaded nine-millimeter Sig Sauer handgun, rock cocaine, and documents connecting Jones's father to the moniker "Baby Head." A ballistics examination showed that the casings recovered from scenes of both the November 21, 2012 and February 12, 2013 shootings were fired from the .40 caliber Glock handgun that was found inside the bedroom of Jones's father.

2. Jones's April 3, 2013 Police Interview

On April 3, 2013, Detective White, along with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Gene Takashima, conducted an audio recorded interview of Jones. In the interview, Jones admitted that he was from the "11 Deuce" set of the Hoover gang, and that he got into the gang because his father was a member. Although Detective White did not have the results of the ballistics testing at the time, he told Jones that a gun recovered from his father's home "came back to a few shootings," and Jones' father did not match the description of the shooter. Detective White also told Jones that it "would look bad" for his father to go to prison for "something he didn't do." Jones initially denied any involvement in the shootings. When Detective White falsely stated that Jones's fingerprints had been found on the gun, Jones said that he sometimes held the gun, but "everybody did" as well. Jones also stated that the gun did not belong to his father, but rather was a "Hoover" gun.

While questioning Jones about his role in the shootings, Detective White showed him two fake photo arrays with Jones's photograph circled and handwritten statements indicating that he was the shooter in each incident. Detective White also suggested that he had spoken to people in the gang who had implicated Jones in the shootings, and told Jones that if he was proud to be a Hoover gang member, he should "stand up" and admit what he had done. Jones continued to deny that he was involved in the crimes. Upon further questioning, however, Jones admitted that he would give the gun from his father's apartment to his fellow gang members and that they would return it. Jones also admitted that he was present at the scene of both shootings, but maintained that he was not the shooter.

With respect to the November 21, 2012 shooting, Jones told the detectives that he was with a group of Hoover gang members who were gathered outside the apartment building. Jones had given the gun to a fellow gang member at some point prior to the shooting, and that person was posted at the gate of the building to stand watch for the gang. When Smith and Strawn walked by that night, Jones and his group thought that they were rival gang members. Jones and some members of his group went outside the gate to "check the scene out," and the person standing watch with the gun began...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • People v. Montelongo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 2020
    ...and Graham ] and in recognition that ‘[e]xisting sentencing laws do not distinguish youth from adults.’ "]; People v. Jones (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 787, 817, 213 Cal.Rptr.3d 167 [the Legislature enacted section 3051 in response to Graham and Miller ].) In enacting section 3051, "the Legislatur......
  • People v. Montelongo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 2020
    ...and Graham ] and in recognition that ‘[e]xisting sentencing laws do not distinguish youth from adults.’ "]; People v. Jones (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 787, 817, 213 Cal.Rptr.3d 167 [the Legislature enacted section 3051 in response to Graham and Miller ].) In enacting section 3051, "the Legislatur......
  • People v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 2020
    ...961, 963; cf. People v. Rodriguez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1123, 1131-1132; In re Loza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 797, 807; People v. Jones (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 787, 819.) That we find no reason to order a remand does not preclude Jacobs from making a pertinent record, however. In In re Cook (2019) 7 Ca......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2021
    ...on the record. (See People v. Rodriguez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1123, 1131; People v. Tran (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 561, 570; People v. Jones (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 787, 819.) The probation report included only minimal information about his circumstances at the time of the offense. (See People v. Rodri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...316, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109, §11:10 Jones, People v. (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 420, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224, §2:20 Jones, People v. (2017) 7 Cal. App. 5th 787, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167, §§2:190, 8:30, 13:50 Jones, People v. (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 373, 178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636, §22:230 Jones, People v......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...police officer told the juvenile defendant that he could either charge the defendant or clear his name. People v. Jones (2d Dist.2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 787, 796. When the defendant asked how his name could be cleared, the officer responded that he would rather have the truth, and if the defend......
  • Jury selection
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...there be a complete record on appeal, and then denied the motion without comment after the reasons were stated. People v. Jones (2017) 7 Cal. App. 5th 787, 804, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167. By itself, the prosecutor’s use of three of nine peremptory challenges to excuse African–American prospectiv......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...one, to be weighed with many others"); In re M.S., 32 Cal.App.5th at 1189 (discussing juveniles); People v. Jones (2d Dist.2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 787, 809 (same). When considering the totality of the circumstances involving a minor, courts should also take into account whether the minor reques......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT