People v. Jackson CA3

Filed 8/7/15 P. v. Jackson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078118

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF129591A)

v.

ROBERT LOUIS JACKSON III,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Louis Jackson III has asked us to review his conviction pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment as modified. BACKGROUND A complaint filed in October 2014 charged defendant Robert Louis Jackson III with felony hit and run (count 1; Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)), misdemeanor driving on a license suspended for drunk driving (count 2; Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)), and

1

failing to provide evidence of financial responsibility, an infraction (count 3; Veh. Code, § 16028, subd. (c)). Defendant pleaded guilty to all counts. At the time of the plea, counsel stipulated to a factual basis providing in relevant part that on September 21, 2014, defendant was driving a car on a street in Stockton and collided with a boy riding his bicycle on the same street in the opposite direction. While the boy’s mother and a neighbor were rendering aid, defendant moved the bicycle out of the path of his car and drove away. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation, with 180 days in county jail on count 1 and an additional 10 days consecutive on count 2, with 52 days of credit for time served. The court subsequently entered an order granting appellate counsel’s motion for correction of the record, which awarded defendant 52 days of conduct credit, giving him a total of 104 days of presentence custody credit. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine, plus a $30 surcharge (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)),1 as well as a $40 court security fee (also known as a court operations assessment, § 1465.8) and a $30 conviction assessment (also known as a court facilities assessment, Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)) on each of counts 1 and 2. The court ordered victim restitution in an amount to be determined and recited other terms and conditions of probation, but did not incorporate any pre-existing probation order by reference, instead concluding: “That will be the order in both cases as I laid that out.” Defendant and the court both signed the resulting order of probation. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal therefrom.2