The People v. Jackson CA2/5

Filed 9/10/13 P. v. Jackson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B245336

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA082461) v.

HOWARD HENDERSON JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed with modifications. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Following a jury trial, appellant Howard Henderson Jackson was found guilty of two counts of indecent exposure with a prior conviction for the same offense (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1)).1 He admitted he had prior convictions that fell under the “Three Strikes” law (§ 1170, subd. (a)-(d)) and section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant was sentenced to 11 years and four months in prison. The trial court ordered appellant to pay direct restitution of $753.60 to one of the victims in the case. The calculation was based on the victim’s lost wages resulting from her court appearances in the case. Appellant challenges this order as unconstitutional. He also argues the trial court miscalculated his conduct credits. We reject the constitutional challenge but accept respondent’s concession that the credits were miscalculated.

I. FACTS Due to the nature of the issues raised on appeal, the facts may be succinctly stated. The current offenses concerned two incidents separated by a period of about 30 minutes. First, appellant masturbated in front of Q.A. as she walked down a Los Angeles street. Appellant commented, “Come here, bitch. Let me fuck you. Give me some pussy.” The second incident was similar. Appellant approached R.I. as she was walking, exposed his penis, and told her she was a “bitch” and she “needed to get fucked.” Evidence of comparable prior crimes committed by appellant was also introduced. On two separate occasions appellant approached women in public places, exposed his penis, and masturbated. On a third occasion, appellant approached a woman as she was walking her son to daycare and touched her buttocks and legs.