People v. Jones CA1/1

Filed 10/15/25 P. v. Jones CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172239 v. MICHAEL DEAN JONES, (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CRF099098) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This appeal follows a resentencing hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.2 On appeal, defendant Michael Dean Jones contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the trial court erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing hearing. We agree with the parties and remand the matter for a full resentencing hearing pursuant to section 1172.75.

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to 1

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(2). We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 2

otherwise indicated.

1

After a jury convicted defendant of gross vehicular manslaughter while being intoxicated,3 the trial court sentenced him to 34 years to life in prison, which included a one-year prior prison term enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).4 Almost 14 years later, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. The trial court issued an order finding defendant eligible for resentencing,5 appointed counsel, and scheduled a hearing for May 2024. At the May hearing, defendant, who was in custody, was not present. The May 2024 clerk’s minute order indicated defendant was not present but “would like to be present,” and that the “People would like to continue [the] matter for further research on Defendant wanting to be present.” The court continued the hearing to June 2024. Over the next several months, and despite several court orders issued to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) requesting defendant’s removal and transport, the CDCR failed to transport defendant to hearings. Defense counsel repeatedly