Opinion
B304479
09-15-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEESO DELANO JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.
California Appellate Project, Richard B. Lennon under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA040255) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed. California Appellate Project, Richard B. Lennon under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1998, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of armed robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b)) and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021). Following a bench trial, the court found true the allegations that defendant had sustained two prior strike convictions (§ 1170.12) and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). (People v. Jackson (Nov. 8, 2001, B144216) [nonpub. opn.].)
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On appeal, a prior panel of this division of the Court of Appeal ordered that defendant's sentence be modified to an aggregate term of 75 years to life. (People v. Jackson, supra, B144216.) On April 9, 2002, the judgment was so modified.
On January 13, 2020, defendant filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to newly enacted section 1016.8, which provides, in relevant part, that: "A plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive unknown future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may occur after the date of the plea is not knowing and intelligent." (§ 1016.8, subd. (a)(4).) Defendant contended that the sentencing enhancements that applied pursuant to the Three Strikes law must be vacated as his prior strike convictions stemmed from 1993 pleas that were "unconscionable." Defendant did not attach any documents or proffer an explanation for why the agreements pursuant to which he had previously pleaded guilty or no contest were unconscionable. Nor did he introduce any other evidence regarding the circumstances under which he entered his pleas in 1993.
On January 16, 2020, the court denied defendant's motion. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Defendant's appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we independently review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues. On June 9, 2020, we notified defendant that appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that he had 30 days within which to independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider.
On June 23, 2020, defendant filed a supplemental brief, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion because his prior pleas in 1993 were not knowing and voluntary. The court did not err. First, defendant's conviction was final long before January 1, 2020, the effective date of section 1016.8. Defendant is not entitled to retroactive application of that law and the trial court thus lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence pursuant to it. (See People v. Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326 [considering Senate Bill No. 620].) Further, defendant has failed to demonstrate that section 1016.8 supports his motion to vacate his sentence. He did not submit any evidence to support his claim that in 1993 he pleaded pursuant to an agreement that required him to waive unknown future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may occur after the date of the plea.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's denial of defendant's motion to modify sentence is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J.
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.