People v. Jackson CA2/8

Filed 10/29/20 Opinion on transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B292752

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA461416) v.

VANELLE VASHAN JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael A. Tynan, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Patricia S. Lai, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant Vanelle Vashan Jackson pled guilty to one count of second degree robbery and admitted a prior strike conviction. She was conditionally released to a residential substance abuse treatment program. After absconding from the program, defendant was detained and sentenced to a six-year state prison term. Defendant was denied a certificate of probable cause and filed an appeal raising sentencing issues and requesting remand so that she could be considered for mental health diversion pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.36, a new statute enacted after her 2017 conviction. In our original unpublished opinion filed January 13, 2020, we affirmed defendant’s conviction, concluded Penal Code section 1001.36 did not apply retroactively and directed the trial court on remand to reduce the restitution fine and parole revocation fine to the statutory minimum and to correct the amount of total presentence custody credits. Defendant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted review and deferred further consideration of the matter pending its disposition in People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618 (Frahs). After the issuance of its decision in Frahs, the Supreme Court, by order dated August 19, 2020, transferred the matter to this court with directions to vacate our original decision and reconsider the cause in light of Frahs. Having done so, we conclude, in light of Frahs, that a conditional reversal and limited remand is warranted to allow the trial court the opportunity to conduct a mental health diversion eligibility hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.36. (Frahs, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 640.)