People v. Jones CA2/1

Filed 9/2/20 P. v. Jones CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B304956

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA313609)

v.

ANDREW JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George Gonzalez Lomeli, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

In July 2010, a jury convicted Andrew Jones of second degree murder and mayhem and found he used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of each offense. (People v. Jones (Aug. 27, 2012, B227030) [nonpub. opn.], p. 9.) As part of Jones’s sentence, the trial court imposed a restitution fine in the amount of $10,000. We affirmed the trial court’s judgment. (Id. at p. 28.) On January 30, 2020, Jones moved the trial court for an order modifying or vacating his sentence arguing that the trial court improperly imposed the restitution fine without conducting an ability-to-pay hearing under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 157. The trial court denied Jones’s motion at a hearing on January 31, 2020. Jones timely appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On June 30, 2020, we sent letters to Jones and appointed counsel, directing counsel to forward the appellate record to Jones and advising Jones that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Jones did not respond. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Jones’s appellate counsel has fully complied with the responsibilities set forth in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110, and People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. No arguable issues exist.