Court Opinion

ID: 9556044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 22:03:59.786501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:41.045278
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/15/23 P. v. Jones CA2/4
            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

     IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                       DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,                                                   B321841

       Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. GA051109
       v.

MARC ANTHONY JONES,

       Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Teri Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed.
     Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
       “In 2004, a jury convicted Jones of first degree murder
([Pen. Code,1] § 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that
he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53,
subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced him to 50 years to life in
state prison.” (People v. Jones (Dec. 8, 2020, B300320) [nonpub.
opn.] (Jones).)2
       “In 2019, Jones filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1170.95 . . . . [¶] The trial court denied the petition,
concluding Jones was ineligible for relief as a matter of law
because the record did not show he was convicted under a felony-
murder or natural and probable consequences theory of liability.
In denying the petition, the court noted Jones shot the victim
multiple times during a domestic dispute, was convicted of first
degree murder, the jury found true a personal use firearm
allegation, and the appellate court decision noted the evidence
overwhelmingly demonstrated he harbored an intent to kill.”
(Jones, supra, B300320.)
       Jones appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s
order denying relief, noting the record of conviction in no way
demonstrated Jones was convicted under the felony murder rule

1     All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
2      We granted appellate counsel’s request for judicial notice of
our opinion, in case number B300320, affirming the denial of
Jones’s original petition for section 1170.95 relief. This appeal is
from the denial of another section 1170.95 petition Jones filed
after the Legislature amended the statute in various ways.
Because the litigation in this case occurred before section 1170.95
was renumbered, we refer throughout this opinion to the old code
section.

                                 2
or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Jones, supra,
B300320.)
       In 2021, after the Legislature amended section 1170.95,
Jones filed another section 1170.95 petition for relief. In his
petition, Jones requested that counsel be appointed on his behalf.
He included jury instructions from his trial along with his
petition. The trial court appointed counsel for Jones. When
neither party filed a brief, the court deemed the matter
submitted. The court concluded Jones was not eligible for relief.
In doing so, the trial court noted it had previously denied Jones
section 1170.95 relief, and that ruling was affirmed by this court.
       Jones timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to
represent him. On March 17, 2023, appellate counsel filed a brief
raising no issues and requesting discretionary independent
review of the record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216. On April 7, 2023, Jones filed a supplemental brief. In it, he
argues his trial counsel was ineffective in not filing any briefing,
appellate counsel was ineffective in raising no issues, and he is
entitled to relief under statutory and decisional law. We reject
these contentions. As noted above, Jones included jury
instructions from his trial along with his petition. A review of
these instructions demonstrates the jury was not instructed on
the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine. Jones is therefore ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
In addition to rejecting Jones’s arguments, we exercise our
discretion to independently review the record, and we conclude no
arguable issues exist. (See People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at p. 232.)

                                  3
                        DISPOSITION

     The order denying relief is affirmed.

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                             CURREY, P. J.
We concur:

COLLINS, J.

MORI, J.

                               4