People v. Jackson CA2/8

Filed 5/30/24 P. v. Jackson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B331746

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA063472) v.

MICHAEL JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

***********

This case, arising from an incident in 2001, has a long and complex procedural history, with several appeals and retrials. (See People v. Jackson (Sept. 29, 2003, B160746) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Jackson (Dec. 27, 2005, B177201) [nonpub. opn.], sub. opn. (Jun. 13, 2013, B177201) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Jackson (Mar. 21, 2016, B259024) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Jackson (Nov. 8, 2021, B310720) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery and two counts of false imprisonment, with firearm and prior conviction enhancements and is serving a 40-year prison sentence. In May 2023, defendant filed in propria persona a motion to correct and supplement the postconviction record and his preconviction probation report pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.01. The trial court found the motion untimely because defendant did not seek relief immediately after his conviction and sentencing. The court summarily denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant timely appealed. In his opening brief, defendant requests the denial be reversed and the matter remanded for a hearing on the merits of his motion. Defendant says he seeks relief only as to his request to supplement the postconviction record pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.01 and is not raising any claim as to his request to correct the probation report. Respondent agrees that reversal and remand for a hearing on the merits is appropriate. In People v. Crites (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 494 (Crites), the defendant, who was not a youthful offender, contended the trial court had jurisdiction under Penal Code section 1203.01, subdivision (a), as interpreted by In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439,