People v. Jones CA3

Filed 12/15/20 P. v. Jones CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C090630

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 01F07610)

v.

GERALD EDWARD JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Gerald Edward Jones guilty of the first degree murder of Justin Roberts during the course of a burglary; the trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Defendant petitioned the trial court under Penal Code1 section 1170.95 for resentencing based on changes to the felony-murder rule under recently enacted Senate Bill No. 1437. (Stats.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

2018, ch. 1015, § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2019.) The trial court summarily denied his petition finding the record established defendant was ineligible for resentencing given the jury’s true finding on an alleged burglary-murder special circumstance under section 190.2. The court reasoned that in finding the special circumstance true, the jury necessarily found defendant was either the actual killer, aided and abetted the actual killer with the intent to kill, or was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life during the crimes. On appeal, defendant argues he was entitled to a hearing on the merits of his petition before the trial court’s denial. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We take the facts from the unpublished opinion we issued in 2004 affirming defendant’s convictions in case No. C045098. (People v. Jones (Nov. 24, 2004, C045098) [nonpub. opn.] (Jones).)2 In September 2001, defendant and two cohorts, Andre Craver and Eric Shelmire, planned to steal marijuana from Roberts’s apartment. They arrived in two cars at the apartment complex; defendant drove his own vehicle and the codefendants drove in another vehicle. All three were dressed in black so as not to be seen. Defendant saw Craver pull out a gun before entering Roberts’s darkened apartment. Craver entered the apartment first through an open window, and defendant followed; Shelmire remained outside. Immediately upon entering, Craver landed on a person who was sleeping beneath the open window. They struggled, and upon hearing the commotion, Roberts came running out and turned on a light. Three gunshots were fired, and defendant and Craver then left the apartment through the window. Roberts died of a gunshot wound to the chest. A jury found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Roberts (§ 187), and found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery