People v. Jones CA3

Filed 2/11/26 P. v. Jones CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102566

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F01670)

v.

RUSSELL JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2007, a jury found defendant Russell Jones guilty of first degree murder and found that he committed the murder in the course of a robbery and a burglary. In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under what is now Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was recodified without substantive change to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Defendant filed his

1

Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court failed to determine his liability for murder beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 21, 2005, a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy entered Daryl Sussdorf’s car dealership looking for him after he failed to respond to his daughter’s phone calls. The deputy found blood in many places on the first floor and followed a trail of blood to the second floor. He found Sussdorf sitting on a chair upstairs gasping for air, bleeding profusely from his head, and nonresponsive. The right rear pocket of Sussdorf’s jeans had been torn from the seams, and detectives later found an empty wallet under a rolling filing cabinet on the first floor. Sussdorf had suffered 11 blows to the head from a hammer. Sussdorf died 10 days later at the hospital due to blunt force trauma to the head. After the attack, detectives found an index card on the floor of Sussdorf’s business with defendant’s name on it. The following month, detectives arrested codefendant Mark Adcock who led them to defendant. The detectives had Adcock make a pretextual phone call to defendant. Adcock asked defendant if Sussdorf’s wallet had been disposed of, and defendant said yes. Defendant told Adcock not to talk about Sussdorf’s murder over the phone and not to talk to the police. Sheriff’s deputies then arrested defendant and interviewed him. Defendant admitted he had previously purchased cars from Sussdorf and had known him for one year. He also admitted he had been with Adcock on the day of the murder. A deputy told defendant he knew defendant had been wearing a black puffy jacket the night of the murder. Defendant said the jacket was at his mother’s house and claimed someone else had given it to him. Adcock had informed the deputy that defendant had worn a pair of red gloves the night of the murder, and defendant confirmed he owned a pair of red work