People v. Jackson CA3

Filed 5/4/15 P. v. Jackson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C076845

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F01397)

v.

WILBERT EARL JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Wilbert Earl Jackson appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation (Pen. Code, § 4852.01)1 from the crime of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). He contends the denial of his petition was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code at the time of the charged offense.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Crime In 1985, defendant pleaded no contest to violating section 288, subdivision (a), lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14. His daughter was the victim. He was sentenced to serve eight years in state prison. According to defendant’s petition, he was discharged from parole in September 1989. The Motion Defendant, age 68, filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation on March 18, 2013. Attached to the petition were photocopies of: (1) People v. Tuck (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 724, 726-742, in which the court indicated a possible equal protection problem regarding the statutory provision making people convicted of section 288, subdivision (a), ineligible for a certificate of rehabilitation; (2) a psychiatric evaluation; and (3) a letter from defendant’s pastor. No other evidence was submitted by defendant. Psychiatric Evaluation The evaluation was performed on November 30, 2012. The psychiatrist noted the “[p]atient reports that at this time he did not understand the ramifications of pleading no contest and reports that that was what he was advised to do by the public defender and he did not have money for an alternative legal opinion.” Regarding the offense, the psychiatrist wrote, “In 1985 patient reports having family stressors and going through stressors in regards to his wife.” Defendant told the psychiatrist his wife was leaving the house and not coming back, showing little care in their marriage or his three children, and eventually leaving him. Defendant reported that the children were later taken away from him based on an anonymous report that he was an “ ‘unfit father.’ ” He then went through the legal process, but did not understand the plea and did not have a fair trial. The psychiatrist observed that defendant “describes past history in a manner that appears that he did not do any sexual acts to children, but when asked explicitly he does admit to ‘just touching and kissing and lying in bed with my daughter.’ ” Defendant told