People v. Jones CA2/1, B336093

Kavon Jones was charged with murder in connection with the 2007 shooting death of Dion Miles, who was killed in gang territory allegedly by Jones, a Carver Park Crips member.
Two eyewitnesses identified Jones as the shooter both in a photographic line-up and in court.
Jones accepted a plea deal in 2008, pleading no contest to voluntary manslaughter and carrying a loaded unregistered firearm while an active gang member, with certain enhancements; the murder count was dismissed.
In 2022, Jones petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, alleging he could not be convicted under changes to California’s murder law (restrictions on felony murder, natural and probable consequences doctrine).
The superior court denied Jones’s petition, relying on the preliminary hearing transcript and finding his petition was conclusory and unsupported by specific facts suggesting entitlement to relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should the trial court consider the preliminary hearing transcript at the prima facie stage of a §1172.6 petition?	Yes, as established by precedent, the court can review the transcript to determine eligibility.	No, the trial court should not make factual determinations or rely on the preliminary hearing transcript at the prima facie stage.	Yes, under People v. Patton, preliminary hearing transcripts are properly considered.
Did Jones make a prima facie case for resentencing under §1172.6?	No, the record shows Jones acted as the actual killer with malice, disqualifying him from relief.	Yes, the petition's allegations were sufficient to require further review; he may have acted without malice.	No, conclusion-only allegations are insufficient if the record forecloses relief; court properly denied the petition.
Does Jones deserve a chance to amend his petition to plead additional facts?	Jones should be permitted to amend, as suggested by Patton.	He should be given the opportunity to supplement his petition for a proper prima facie case.	Yes, Jones may amend his petition within 30 days of remand.
Was the court's denial of resentencing improper without allowing Jones an evidentiary hearing?	No, as there were no material factual disputes to merit an evidentiary hearing.	Yes, he should have had a hearing because the law changed and facts were in dispute.	No, without specific factual allegations, no hearing was required.

People v. Patton, 17 Cal.5th 549 (Cal. 2025) (preliminary hearing transcripts can be considered at prima facie stage of § 1172.6 petitions)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (prima facie standard for considering § 1172.6 petitions and role of the record of conviction)
People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (felony-murder rule limitations and its impact on murder liability)