THE PEOPLE v. MARCUS JACKSON (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Defendant and appellant Marcus Jackson pled no contest to one count of making a criminal threat (Pen.Code, § 422) and admitted the truth of an allegation that he had suffered one “strike” prior conviction.

At the preliminary hearing, Kyndra Davis testified that in December 2009, appellant lived with her and her two children;  that on December 27 of that year appellant pushed her, punched her head, face, and stomach, then stood at the front door calling to people across the street, asking them to fight her.   A week before this incident he had showed her the magazine to a hand gun and told her “I got this ․ you keep fuckin' up, I got this for you.”   Appellant had earlier told Davis that he had been to prison for murder, and Davis was afraid that appellant would kill her.

Appellant was sentenced to a total of six years in state prison;  the upper term of three years for the Penal Code violation, doubled to six years pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law.

We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.   After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues.   Counsel advised appellant that he intended to file such a brief and also advised appellant that he could submit a supplemental brief in his own behalf.   We, too, advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider and directed counsel to send a copy of the record on appeal to appellant.

Appellant responded with a letter brief, in which he contends that he was not given a Miranda warning before he was interrogated;  that his home was searched without his approval or acceptance;  that the charges against him were fabricated;  that Davis gave false testimony because Sheriff's Deputy Gregory Kelly threatened to take her children away from her and to arrest her for welfare fraud;  that his lawyer became irate after he wrote to the judge explaining that Davis had a criminal background and that after that he received ineffective assistance of counsel;  and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that counsel did not allow him to testify at the preliminary hearing and failed to make objections to evidence.   Appellant's letter brief emphasizes that he is not seeking a new trial, but instead is asking this court to modify his sentence by reducing it by two years, the sentence given to another defendant in the courtroom, who had in appellant's view a criminal record which was worse than appellant's, and who had worse crimes alleged against him.

Appellant's sentence was one authorized by law, and was well within the trial court's discretion.   We thus affirm.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

MOSK, J. KRIEGLER, J.