86 Cal.App.5th 1076
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In October 2014, victim Demetrius Ward was shot and killed during a staged marijuana sale; the murder weapon was not recovered at scene.
- Kai Hughes (accomplice) and Aimee Sabedra (accessory after the fact) testified that Jones volunteered for the robbery, grabbed Toriano Byrd’s gun, insisted on taking the clip, and accompanied a co-participant to Ward’s truck; Hughes heard a shot after ducking down.
- Jones was convicted of first degree felony murder (felony-murder theory) but the jury found not true the allegation that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)).
- Jones petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) after SB 1437; the trial court denied relief, finding Jones was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, relying on Clark/Banks factors and statements by Jones after the shooting.
- The trial court said it would not find Jones was the actual shooter because the jury had returned a not-true finding on the firearm-use allegation.
- On appeal the court held issue preclusion did not bar consideration of Jones’s possession/supply of the gun, but remanded because the trial court’s ruling predated controlling guidance (Moore) requiring explicit consideration of the defendant’s youth as part of the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury’s “not true” finding on firearm use precludes the trial court from relying on evidence Jones was shooter/possessed the gun | Prosecution: trial court may consider possession/supply of weapon when assessing major participant/reckless indifference | Jones: jury’s not-true finding on personal use (display/hit/fire) collaterally estops court from relying on shooter/possession evidence | Court: issue preclusion did not apply; jury’s finding only negated specific firearm-use acts, not necessarily possession/supply, so trial court could consider possession evidence |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Jones was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference | Prosecution: Clark/Banks factors (planning, grabbing gun, insisting on clip, presence at scene, bragging/indifference) support the finding | Jones: accomplice’s testimony unreliable; jury’s not-true finding undermines critical facts; mere possession of one gun insufficient | Court: evidence could support the finding on Clark/Banks factors, but cannot resolve under substantial-evidence review without considering the defendant’s youth in the totality of circumstances |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider Jones’s youth and maturity in its § 1170.95 analysis | Jones: youth and immaturity are relevant to whether defendant was aware of grave risk and acted with reckless indifference; court failed to consider it | State: presumption that court considered evidence; Jones was ~20 (older than many cases applying youth factor) | Court: remand required—trial court likely did not consider youth as Moore and subsequent cases require; age is a relevant factor and must be assessed on remand |
| Whether remaining claims (e.g., ineffective assistance, collateral issues) require decision now | Jones: counsel failed to raise estoppel and youth issues properly | State: not argued to require relief now | Court: declined to decide remaining issues because remand for youth consideration is necessary first |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (sets multi-factor test for determining major participant and reckless indifference)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (articulates factors used to assess major participant culpability)
- In re Moore, 68 Cal.App.5th 434 (Cal. App. 2021) (holding youth is a relevant factor in § 1170.95/resentencing recklessness analysis)
- In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (Cal. 2020) (explains that awareness of merely foreseeable risk is insufficient to show reckless indifference)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1990) (elements of issue preclusion/issue identity)
- People v. Cooper, 77 Cal.App.5th 393 (Cal. App. 2022) (recent district decision invoked by appellant regarding § 1170.95 and related proof issues)