People v. Jones, A160328

Background

June 16, 2013 shooting at a San Leandro apartment complex parking lot; occupants of a Honda (one wounded) accused Jones of firing into the car.
P.T. (a teen) had prior hostile encounters with Jones, including an earlier incident in which he pointed a gun at her.
Two photo lineups were conducted; P.T., property manager Heather Tackett, and one resident later identified Jones in photos; other car occupants gave mixed or delayed identifications (Massaquoi ultimately identified Jones at trial after earlier uncertainty).
Defense theory was misidentification; defense expert Dr. Mitchell Eisen testified about limits on the reliability of eyewitness certainty.
Jury convicted Jones of attempted murder (one count), multiple assault counts, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and felon in possession; sentenced to 59 years. Jones appealed raising (1) CALCRIM No. 315 (eyewitness certainty) due process challenge, (2) denial of Pitchess discovery and related ineffective-assistance claim, and (3) resentencing in light of post-sentencing statutory changes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether listing "witness certainty" among CALCRIM No. 315 factors violated due process	People: Inclusion of certainty as one of many factors did not lower the prosecution's burden; jury received expert testimony and other instructions to evaluate credibility	Jones: The certainty factor misleads jurors into equating certainty with accuracy and deprived him of a fair trial	Court: Rejected due process claim; given expert testimony and other instructions, inclusion did not render trial fundamentally unfair (courts should generally omit certainty unless defendant requests it pending Judicial Council review)
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Pitchess discovery and whether counsel was ineffective for not renewing motion	People: Denial proper because defense did not present the narrowly tailored, plausible factual scenario and good-cause showing required for Pitchess in-camera review	Jones: Pitchess motion adequately alleged suggestive lineup and officer veracity issues; later trial evidence strengthened the case for review; failure to renew was ineffective assistance	Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion as to Deputy Young (and not warranted as to Deputy Mora); defense declarations lacked the specific factual scenario required; no ineffective assistance shown
Whether resentencing is required because of post-sentencing legislative changes (amendments to §1170(b) and §654 and related acts)	People/AG: AG agreed remand required; amended statutes are ameliorative and apply retroactively to nonfinal convictions	Jones: New statutes (and earlier SB 620/SB 1393) permit court discretion to strike enhancements and limit upper-term imposition, so remand needed	Court: Convictions affirmed but sentence vacated; remand for full resentencing under amended §1170(b) and §654 (retroactive application), permitting reexamination of terms, stayed sentences, and enhancements

Key Cases Cited

People v. Lemcke, 11 Cal.5th 644 (Cal. 2021) (rejected due process challenge to CALCRIM No. 315’s certainty factor and directed Judicial Council review)
People v. Wright, 12 Cal.5th 419 (Cal. 2021) (applied Lemcke principles to eyewitness-ID instruction)
Warrick v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011 (Cal. 2005) (explains Pitchess good-cause and factual-scenario requirements)
Alford v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 1033 (Cal. 2003) (Pitchess discovery is discretionary and reviewed for abuse)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (full resentencing rule when part of sentence is stricken)
People v. Valenzuela, 7 Cal.5th 415 (Cal. 2019) (scope of resentencing discretion)
People v. Flores, 73 Cal.App.5th 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (retroactivity of amended §1170(b))
People v. Mani, 74 Cal.App.5th 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (application of amended §654/Assembly Bill 518 to nonfinal cases)