THE PEOPLE v. FREDRICK JACKSON

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDRICK JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

B226533

Decided: February 23, 2011

Linn Davis, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Fredrick Jackson appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to insurance fraud and other felonies.   No meritorious issues have been identified following a review of the record by defendant's appointed counsel and our own independent review of the record.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)   We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant and five confederates were involved in making false property damage claims to an insurance company for traffic collisions that never occurred.   Defendant was arrested and charged with insurance fraud (Pen.Code,1 § 550, subd. (a)(1);  counts 1 & 2), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1);  count 5), and unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1);  count 6).2  Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges.3

On the eve of trial, defendant, who was represented by counsel, rejected the prosecutor's offer of a four-year state prison sentence and elected to enter an open plea to the court.   Defendant waived his right to trial and entered pleas of no contest to all counts.   At the time defendant entered his plea, he was advised of his constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of his plea.   Defendant stated that he understood and waived his constitutional rights, acknowledged that he understood the consequences of his plea.   Defendant was also specifically advised that his sentence could range anywhere from probation up to and including the maximum term of seven years, four months in state prison.   Defendant was additionally told that victim restitution totaled $1,373.97, for which he was jointly and severally liable with a codefendant.4

The trial court found the plea was freely and voluntarily entered, and there was a factual basis for the plea.   Defense counsel joined in the waivers of defendant's constitutional rights in the plea and stipulated to a factual basis of the plea.

At sentencing, the trial court indicated it had read the sentencing memoranda, the preliminary hearing transcript, the probation officer's report, and letters from defendant's family on his behalf.   The court denied defendant probation and sentenced him to an aggregate term of four years, eight months, consisting of the middle term of three years for insurance fraud (count 1), plus one year (one-third the middle term) for insurance fraud (count 2), plus eight months (one-third the middle term) for possession of a firearm by a felon (count 5).   Sentence was imposed and stayed for unlawful possession of ammunition (count 6) pursuant to section 654.   The court ordered defendant to pay victim restitution in the amount of $1,373.97, for which he was jointly and severally liable, a $120 court security assessment, a $120 criminal conviction fee and a $200 restitution fine.   A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to section 1202.45.   Defendant was awarded 612 days of presentence custody credits (306 actual days and 306 days of conduct credits).

DISCUSSION

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, challenging the sentence imposed.   We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.   After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.   On December 3, 2010, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.   No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];  People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119;  People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code..  FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FN2. Bruce Lee, Wendell Fuqua, Robert Van De Vort, Shermane Marie Henderson and Sejourney Rodney Salter were charged as codefendants..  FN2. Bruce Lee, Wendell Fuqua, Robert Van De Vort, Shermane Marie Henderson and Sejourney Rodney Salter were charged as codefendants.

FN3. On the People's motion, the trial court dismissed a prior strike allegation (§§ 667, subds.(b)-(i), 1170.12) against defendant..  FN3. On the People's motion, the trial court dismissed a prior strike allegation (§§ 667, subds.(b)-(i), 1170.12) against defendant.

FN4. Codefendant Bruce Lee entered a negotiated plea at the same plea hearing.   He is not a party to this appeal..  FN4. Codefendant Bruce Lee entered a negotiated plea at the same plea hearing.   He is not a party to this appeal.

WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.