People v. Jackson CA3

Filed 8/19/24 P. v. Jackson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097731

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 98F06838)

v.

LAMON EDWARD JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lamon Edward Jackson appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 He contends the trial court erred in

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. Although Jackson filed his petition under former section 1170.95, we cite the current section number throughout this opinion.

1

denying his petition at the prima facie stage because: (1) the jury could have found him guilty of attempted murder under a theory equivalent to the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (2) section 1172.6 provides relief to those convicted of attempted murder under theories of imputed malice other than the natural and probable consequences doctrine; and (3) the court improperly relied on facts stated in our prior appellate opinion. Jackson also argues that section 1172.6 violates equal protection by providing more expansive relief to those convicted of murder than to those convicted of attempted murder. Finding no merit to these contentions, we affirm. BACKGROUND In 1999, a jury found Jackson guilty of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle (§ 246). The jury found true that: (1) the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated; (2) Jackson personally used a firearm as to the assault with a firearm and discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); and (3) Jackson personally used and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm as to the attempted murder (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(c)). The trial court instructed the jury that “Defendant is accused . . . of having committed the crime of attempted murder . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] In order to prove attempted murder, each of the following elements must be proved; [¶] 1. A direct but ineffectual act was done by one person towards killing another human being; and [¶] 2. The person committing the act harbored express malice aforethought, namely, a specific intent to kill unlawfully another human being.” The court also told the jury that “[t]here has been evidence in this case indicating that a person other than defendant was or may have been involved in the crime” but instructed the jury not to “discuss or give any consideration as to why the other person is not being prosecuted in this trial.” The jury received no instructions on aiding and abetting liability or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.