People v. Jackson CA2/5

Filed 12/29/20 P. v. Jackson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B304102

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA070291) v.

AL TYRONE JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Chung, Judge. Vacated and remanded with directions. Rachel Varnell, 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, Kenneth C. Byrne, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Christopher G. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Al Tyrone Jackson (defendant) admitted violating the conditions of his probation, but he said he was admitting the violation because he planned to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him on appeal. The law does not permit that, but the trial court did not correct defendant or advise him such an appellate challenge would not be permitted. The Attorney General concedes defendant is entitled to withdraw his admission as the result of the court’s failure to correctly advise defendant, and we agree.

I. BACKGROUND In 2019, defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. By the time of sentencing, defendant had accrued 1,945 custody credits. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a ten-year prison term, with the execution of that sentence suspended, and five years of formal probation. Defendant was ordered to complete three types of counseling, including domestic violence counseling. Later that year, the trial court held a hearing to consider defendant’s progress on probation. The Probation Department reported defendant was not in compliance with the terms of his probation because he enrolled in an unapproved domestic violence program. The Probation Department recommended defendant “be found in violation and that probation be revoked and a suitable sanction be imposed.” The court remanded defendant into custody pending a probation violation hearing. At the violation hearing, the trial court indicated—over the People’s objection—it would sentence defendant to a year in county jail if he admitted the violation and “waive[d] all back time,” i.e., all the custody credits he previously earned. The court