People v. Jackson CA2/8

Filed 6/8/23 P. v. Jackson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B322629

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA265743-01 v.

JASMINE JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Count, Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed.

J. Kahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We affirm the trial court. In 2007, appellant Jasmine Jackson was convicted of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a)1 and discharge of a firearm from a vehicle in violation of section 12034, subdivision (c). The jury found true gun enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1). The trial court sentenced appellant to 50 years to life in state prison for the murder and firearm enhancement and imposed and stayed a mid-term sentence on the second count. This court affirmed appellant’s conviction. (People v. Jackson (July 8, 2008, B197767) [nonpub. opn.].) On January 19, 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95). (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, §10.) She was represented by counsel during the proceedings. Appellant contended she could not now be convicted of murder under changes made by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.). On May 20, 2022, the People opposed the petition, pointing out that the jury was not instructed on any theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. The People attached the jury instructions to their opposition papers. As a second issue, because appellant was under the age of 26 at the time of her conviction, she was eligible for a youth offender parole hearing. Based on this fact, her counsel also filed a motion for a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439.