People v. Jackson CA2/8

Filed 9/12/24 P. v. Jackson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B334453

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA090234-01 v.

WILSON E. JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph A. Brandolino, Judge. Reversed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance. E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Blake Armstrong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

We agree with both parties that appellant Wilson E. Jackson must be resentenced because the sentence imposed when he violated his probation is incorrect. Wilson E. Jackson pleaded no contest to 29 criminal charges: nine counts of forgery, nine counts of grand theft, three counts of attempted grand theft, two counts of identity theft, five counts of passing checks with insufficient funds, and one count of grand theft by access card. The trial court imposed and suspended an aggregate sentence of six years four months in the county jail and placed Jackson on probation. On August 4, 2023, Jackson admitted violating probation. The trial court imposed the suspended county jail sentence. Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal. Jackson contends the trial court erred in imposing sentence for two counts of attempted grand theft (counts 18 and 27). Specifically, he argues that under Penal Code1 sections 664, subdivision (a) and 489, subdivision (c), the appropriate sentence for attempted grand theft is one-half of the term for completed grand theft. He points out the trial court imposed sentences for completed grand theft on these two counts. So instead of the consecutive eight-month middle term imposed on count 18, he should have been sentenced to a middle term of four months. Instead of the concurrent two-year middle term imposed on count 27, he should have been sentenced to a middle term of one year. Respondent agrees the sentences are incorrect, and so do we.