Filed 8/27/20 P. v. Jones CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MELVIN EDWARD JONES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B305360

(Super. Ct. No. MA063477)

(Los Angeles County)

In 2015, a jury convicted Melvin Edward Jones of 

assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1

§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and 

threatening a witness (§ 140, subd. (a)). The jury also found true 

allegations that Jones inflicted great bodily injury when he 

committed his assault (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that he 

committed all three of his crimes for the benefit of a criminal 

street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, 

the trial court found true allegations that Jones had two prior 

1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

“strike” convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d))

and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and 

that he served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). It 

sentenced him to 38 years to life in state prison: 25 years to life 

on the assault, a consecutive 10 years on the prior serious 

felonies, and a consecutive three years for inflicting great bodily 

injury. The court also ordered him to pay a $5,000 restitution 

fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)). 

This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People 

v. Jones (Aug. 15, 2016, B262297) [nonpub. opn.].) Four years 

later, after the judgment had become final, Jones moved to vacate 

his restitution fine due to an inability to pay. (See People v. 

Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.) The trial court denied 

Jones’s motion. 

Jones then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

arguing: (1) pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393 (S.B. 1393), the 

trial court should exercise its discretion to strike the prior serious 

felony enhancements to his sentence, and (2) the court should 

strike the great bodily injury enhancement because that 

enhancement cannot attach to a conviction for assault with force 

likely to produce great bodily injury. The court denied Jones’s 

petition. 

We appointed counsel to represent Jones in his 

appeal from the denial of his Dueñas motion. After counsel 

examined the record in that case, he filed an opening brief that 

raises no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 

441.) Jones then filed a supplemental letter brief, asserting the 

same arguments raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

But because Jones did not raise those issues in his Dueñas

motion, we cannot consider them here. (People v. Case (2018) 5 
3

Cal.5th 1, 44-45 [issue cannot be raised for the first time on 

appeal].) Even if we could, we would reject them: S.B. 1393 does 

not apply retroactively to final convictions. (People v. Alexander

(2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341, 343.) And bodily injury is not an 

element of assault, which permits a great bodily injury 

enhancement to attach to an assault conviction. (People v. Brown

(1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 24, 34.)

Jones also purports to appeal from the trial court’s 

order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. No appeal 

lies from such an order. (Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 

836.)

The trial court’s February 10, 2020, order denying 

Jones’s Dueñas motion is affirmed. The appeal from the 

February 18, 2020, order denying Jones’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.
Kathleen Blanchard, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.