People v. Jackson CA2/1

Filed 12/29/20 P. v. Jackson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B306736

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA349750) v.

RICARDO JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael E. Pastor, Judge. Affirmed. Ricardo Jackson, in pro. per.; and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________________

Ricardo Jackson appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate or stay assessments and fines imposed in 2013 upon his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2011, a jury convicted Jackson of conspiracy to commit murder, and the trial court sentenced him to a prison term of twenty-five years to life and imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and several other fines and assessments. We affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Jackson (Oct. 11, 2013, B237108) [nonpub. opn.] 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7324.) On June 5, 2020, Jackson filed a motion to vacate or stay the fines and assessments pursuant to People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, arguing he had no ability to pay them. Finding Jackson was “serving an extraordinary time in state prison, and should have adequate time to pay,” the trial denied the motion. Jackson appealed. Jackson’s appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano) to determine if the lower court committed any error. Counsel sent a copy of the brief and the record to Jackson and informed him that he may file a supplemental brief. On October 13, 2020, we sent a letter to Jackson informing him that he may submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or argument that he wished us to consider. On December 14, 2020, Jackson filed a supplemental brief, contending that imposition of fines and assessments without a finding on the defendant’s ability to pay them violates due process. “Where a defendant has been afforded all the constitutional protections of a first appeal of right,” he is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende