People v. Jackson CA2/1

Filed 5/3/22 P. v. Jackson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B315725

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA011198) v.

RODDRIC JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Dismissed. ____________________________

Richard B. Lennon and Jill Ishida, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________

In 1996, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Roddric Jackson of one count of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code,1 § 211.) The jury also found that Jackson was armed (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and that he used a gun (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the commission of the offense.2 The trial court found that Jackson had suffered two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)−(i)), two serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and imposed an aggregate sentence of 47 years to life in prison, along with a restitution fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a parole revocation fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)). In September 2021, Jackson filed a “Motion to Dismiss Restitution Order by the Court Pursuant to Assembly Bill [No.] 1869.”3 The superior court denied the motion on the ground that Jackson “has provided no compelling and extraordinary reasons to justify a waiver of the [f]ines and fees that were imposed in this case.” Jackson appealed. We appointed counsel for Jackson, who filed a brief raising no issues and requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). Counsel provided Jackson with a copy of the record and the Serrano brief, and informed him that he had the right to file a supplemental brief. Jackson filed a supplemental brief on April 13, 2022.