People v. Jackson CA2/7

Filed 3/2/22 P. v. Jackson CA2/7 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B296340

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA020015) v.

ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Sally Patrone Brajevich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran, Supervising Attorney General, and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________ Arthur Duane Jackson, convicted in 1994 of attempted murder and carjacking, appealed the summary denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95,1 contending the superior court had erred in ruling section 1170.95 did not apply to attempted murder and denying his petition without appointing counsel and conducting a hearing at which the parties could present evidence. We affirmed the order based on prior decisions from this and other courts of appeal that had rejected identical arguments. After granting Jackson’s petition for review, the Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider Jackson’s appeal in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775) and People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis). In supplemental briefing Jackson again argues the case should be remanded for the superior court to appoint counsel, issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Attorney General agrees in part, contending on remand the superior court should appoint counsel for Jackson and conduct proceedings pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (c), to determine whether Jackson has made a prima facie case for relief, and, if he has, to issue an order to show cause. We agree with the Attorney General, reverse the order denying Jackson’s petition and remand with directions to appoint counsel and proceed in accordance with section 1170.95, subdivision (c).