People v. Jones CA3

Filed 2/16/21 P. v. Jones CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091645

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCR0001197B) v.

MICHAEL LORENZO JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant, Michael Lorenzo Jones, appeals the trial court’s denial without prejudice of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) and (g). (Statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) Defendant argues the trial court erred in determining that he had not established a prima facie case for relief. As we shall explain, we affirm the lower court’s order denying defendant’s petition without prejudice to defendant filing a new petition

1

presenting evidence that establishes the stolen property he received and its fair market value.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The People’s June 1994 information charged defendant with grand theft exceeding $400 (§ 487, subd. (1); count one); receiving stolen property (§ 496; count two); possession of a stolen credit card (§ 484, subd. (e)(4); count three); and giving false information to a law enforcement officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a); count four). The information also alleged that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (d) and (e)). Defendant pleaded guilty to count four and the remaining charges were tried to a jury. During jury deliberations and in light of the jury’s communication that it was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of grand theft, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property in violation of section 496 and admitted suffering one prior prison term. In exchange, defendant was to receive probation with a suspended prison sentence and the balance of the charges and allegations would be dismissed. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was the trial transcript and police reports in the matter. Defendant further affirmed he “was in possession of stolen property. The only thing that I was -- only thing I was with was stolen.” On September 19, 1994, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea, and it does not appear that he appealed that judgment. On January 3, 2020, defendant filed a form petition to reduce his crime to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) and (g) and based on the fact that a violation of section 496 under current law is a misdemeanor if the value of the property received does not exceed $950. The People filed a form opposition to this petition on January 15, 2020, checking the box that defendant’s offense was not eligible for relief. The court appointed an attorney to represent defendant.