Filed 9/13/21 P. v. Jackson CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRED J. JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B311740

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA117942)

THE COURT:

Fred Jackson appeals an order denying his petition for 

resentencing. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170, 1170.95.)1 He was convicted 

by jury in 1997 of two counts of attempted first degree murder 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

and two counts of robbery, with findings that he used a deadly 

weapon to commit the offenses and inflicted great bodily injury 

on the victims. (§§ 664/187, 211, 12022, subd. (b), 12022.7, subd. 

(a).) The jury found he had four prior felony “strike” convictions 

and two prior serious felony convictions. (§ 667.) He was 

sentenced to a prison term of 126 years to life.

This court affirmed the judgment in People v. Jackson 

(Aug. 25, 1998, B110981) [nonpub. opn.]. As described in our 

opinion, Jackson was seen wandering around in a high-rise on 

July 6, 1995, where a witness recognized him from a recent 

interview. Jackson entered an office suite. There, a worker 

confronted him when she saw him removing money from her 

purse. He grabbed her and held a weapon to her back. He forced 

the victim and her colleague to lay on the floor and tied their 

hands. He removed a bracelet from the second victim and rifled 

through her purse. Jackson slashed both women’s necks and 

stabbed them multiple times in the back. (People v. Jackson, 

supra, B110981.)

The victims would have died from their wounds had 

another worker not found them and called for help. One of the 

victims identified Jackson in a photographic lineup, as did other 

people who encountered Jackson in the building shortly before 

the attack. The person who interviewed Jackson gave police the 

home address he had provided; he was arrested there the next 

day. Bloodstains on Jackson’s clothing and shoes contained DNA 

from one of the victims. The knife used in the crime was 

recovered from his kitchen. The victims identified Jackson as 

their assailant at trial. He denied the charges but admitted a 

1982 voluntary manslaughter conviction and four 1987 robbery 

convictions. (People v. Jackson, supra, B110981.)
3

In 2021, Jackson petitioned for resentencing. He argued 

that the evidence did not support his convictions and faulted his 

attorney’s failure to argue that an energy supplement he used 

before the crimes caused his behavior. He expressed remorse for 

the harm he caused. He contended that the jury should have 

been instructed on a “natural and probable consequences” theory. 

He believes that the 26 years he has served “seems adequate,” 

given his age and education he has obtained while incarcerated.

The court denied Jackson’s petition. It found he does not 

qualify for resentencing as a matter of law. The legislation he 

cites does not apply to him.

Jackson appealed the denial of his petition. (§ 1237, subd. 

(b).) We appointed counsel to represent Jackson in his appeal. 

After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising 

no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–443.) We 

advised Jackson that he could personally submit any contentions 

or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. He did not submit a 

supplemental brief.

At the outset, we note that Jackson’s evidentiary 

arguments had to be made on direct appeal; it is too late to say 

the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. 

Resentencing is authorized for “[a] person convicted of felony 

murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences 

theory.” (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).) “By its plain language, section 

1170.95 thus makes resentencing relief available only to 

qualifying persons convicted of murder.” (People v. Sanchez 

(2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 918.) Jackson was not convicted of 

murder. The statute does not apply to his attempted murder 

convictions. (People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 222–

225; People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557, 566, review 
4

granted Apr. 21, 2021, S267529; People v. Larios (2019) 42 

Cal.App.5th 956, 970, review granted Feb. 26, 2020, S259983; 

People v. Medrano (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1018, review 

granted Mar. 11, 2020, S259948.)

Jackson cited the “natural and probable consequences” 

theory of accomplice liability. It applies to a person who aids or 

abets a target offense and is found guilty of a nontarget offense

that was a natural and probable consequence of the crime the 

accomplice aided and abetted. (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 

Cal.5th 830, 843–844.) Accomplice liability theories do not apply 

to Jackson, who was the sole perpetrator of the crimes. The jury 

found he had the requisite murderous intent. (People v. Smith

(2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 739 [a person must intend to kill to be 

convicted of attempted murder].)

Jackson cited section 1170, which allows the court to recall 

a sentence “within 120 days of the date of commitment” or on the 

recommendation of the parole board or district attorney. (§ 1170, 

subd. (d)(1).) The court lacked jurisdiction to recall Jackson’s 

sentence on its own motion. No authorized agency recommended 

sentence recall. Section 1170 does not assist Jackson.

Jackson sought relief under two recent laws, Assembly Bill 

No. 2542 (California Racial Justice Act of 2020) and Assembly 

Bill No. 3234 (Elder Parole Program). Assembly Bill 2542 

“applies only prospectively in cases in which judgment has not 

been entered prior to January 1, 2021.” (§ 745, subd. (j).) It does 

not apply to Jackson’s 1997 conviction. Assembly Bill 3234 does 

not apply to persons sentenced under the Three Strikes law. 

(§ 3055, subd. (g).) Jackson was sentenced under the Three 

Strikes law.
5

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that 

no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at

pp. 441–443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125–126.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

____________________________________________________________

LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.