People v. Jackson CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 7/6/26 P. v. Jackson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D086403

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD304666)

v.

PARIS JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Paris Jackson entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Pursuant to a stipulation, the court ordered a suspended six-year prison term and granted formal probation. The court ordered Jackson into custody pending a hearing on her possible probation violation. The court granted Jackson’s request to replace appointed counsel. Jackson admitted the probation violation. The court ordered 270 days of additional custody and reinstated Jackson on probation. Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Jacson that she could file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded to our notice. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether Jackson’s probation revocation was due to her lack of funds to pay for monitoring. We have independently reviewed the record for errors as required by Wende and Anders. Competent counsel has represented Jackson in this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3