1

Filed 9/22/22 P. v. Jackson CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BAKARI BILAL JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A162659

 (Contra Costa County

Super. Ct. Nos. 5-191723-6; 2-

330678-4; 2-331222-0)

Defendant Bakari Bilal Jackson appeals from orders finding him not 

competent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of State 

Hospitals pursuant to Penal Code section 1367 et seq.

1 His appointed counsel 

has filed a brief raising no issues, asking us to independently review the 

record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), or, 

alternatively, to exercise our discretion to retain the appeal as prescribed in 

Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Although Wende 

review is not mandated, our discretionary review of the record reveals no 

meritorious issues for briefing. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In October 2017, Jackson was convicted of assault by means of force 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and sentenced to 

three years in prison. Jackson was released on postrelease community 

supervision (PRCS) under various terms and conditions, including that he 

report to the probation department as directed and refrain from criminal 

conduct. 

Jackson allegedly violated PRCS on several occasions. On September 

5, 2019, the District Attorney filed a complaint under case No. 2-330678-4 

charging Jackson with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), 

with sentence enhancements and other sentencing allegations. On that same 

day, the probation department petitioned to revoke Jackson’s PRCS, alleging 

he had violated the terms of his PRCS by committing the assault charged in 

case No. 2-330678-4 and doing so as a “hate crime” (§ 422.7), as well as by 

repeatedly failing to report to probation. The petition proceedings were 

docketed under case No. 5-191723-6. 

The above two matters had not been formally consolidated but were 

being litigated together.

2 In those matters, the trial court twice conducted 

2 Along with two other criminal cases: Nos. 2-322711-3 and 2-331222-0. 

Jackson has filed a separate notice of appeal from incompetency and 

commitment orders in case No. 2-331222-0. However, the prosecution later 

reported at a December 1, 2021 hearing that both cases Nos. 2-322711-3 and 

2-331222-0 had been dismissed. In any event, we have no jurisdiction to 

consider the appeal in case No. 2-331222-0, since it was filed as a 

misdemeanor case. (See People v. Nickerson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 33, 36 

[the Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction over appealable orders in a “felony 

case,” while the appellate divisions of the superior courts have jurisdiction 

over appealable orders in “misdemeanor case[s]”], citing §§ 1235, subd. (a), 

1466; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11.) Accordingly, we will transfer the appeal in 

that case to the appellate division of the superior court. (See Nickerson, 

supra, at pp. 39–41; Gov. Code, § 68915.) Our decision here therefore governs 

only the appeals in cases Nos. 2-330678-4 and 5-191723-6, both of which 

involve felony charges and are thus properly before us. (See § 1235, subd. 

(a).)
3

competency proceedings under section 1367 et seq., first in late 2019, and 

second in early 2021.

3 At issue here is the second round of competency 

proceedings. These are the pertinent facts. 

On February 3, 2021, the court declared a doubt regarding Jackson’s 

competence to stand trial. It appointed Shoko Kokubun, Ph.D. and Donald 

Siggins, Ed.D. to evaluate Jackson. Jackson did not request a jury trial on 

the issue of competency. 

On March 17, the court held a competency hearing. With the 

agreement of all counsel, the court admitted the reports of Dr. Siggins and 

Dr. Kokubun into evidence. The parties agreed that of the two reports, Dr. 

Kokubun’s report was “more persuasive” and “more thorough,” and thus they 

both submitted on that report. On the basis of Dr. Kokubun’s report, Jackson 

was found incompetent to stand trial. 

The court referred Jackson to the Contra Costa Conditional Release 

Program (CONREP) for a recommendation regarding his proper placement. 

Based on the CONREP recommendation, the court committed Jackson to the 

Department of State Hospitals. 

Jackson filed timely notices of appeal in cases Nos. 2-330678-4 and 5-

191723-6, which were assigned the same appellate case number, A162659. 

Jackson’s appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asks 

us to independently review the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436. Counsel states that after filing the appeals, Jackson was restored to 

competency and criminal proceedings resumed, during which he entered a 

3 The trial court sealed many documents and some transcripts relevant 

to the competency proceedings. In accordance with the California Rules of 

Court, the sealed documents and transcripts were filed under seal in this 

court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.46(b).) 
4

plea and was granted probation on December 1, 2021. Since then, he has

been released from probation. Jackson was advised of his right to file a 

supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. 

DISCUSSION

Jackson’s counsel initially asserts this court “must” conduct a Wende 

review, but later acknowledges our Supreme Court’s decision in Ben C., 

which held that Wende review is inapplicable to appeals of Lanterman-PetrisShort Act conservatorship proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). 

(Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 538–543.) Counsel also points us to 

People v. Blanchard (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1020 (Blanchard), in which 

Division Three of this court, relying on Ben C. and other relevant cases, 

concluded that due process does not require independent review in 

incompetency commitment proceedings such as these. (Blanchard, supra, 

43 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1024–1025.) The Blanchard court explained that in 

appeals in such proceedings, appointed counsel should follow the process 

identified in Ben C. by filing a brief setting forth the relevant facts and law 

and informing the court that he or she has found no arguable issue to be 

pursued on appeal. Such a brief, the court stated, provides an adequate basis 

for dismissal. (Blanchard, at pp. 1025–1026.) 

Counsel, however, notes that under Ben C. we retain the discretion to 

conduct a Wende review. (See Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7.) 

Given the “private interests at stake” and the “restraints upon physical 

freedom and personal autonomy” at issue, as described by the forceful dissent 

in Ben C., we elect to proceed with a Wende review. (Ben C., at p. 545 (dis. 

opn. of George, C.J.).)

Having examined the entire record, we conclude the appeals are moot. 

Counsel states that while the appeals were pending, Jackson was restored to 
5

competency, entered a plea and was granted probation, and subsequently was

released from probation. Once a defendant has been restored to competency 

and criminal proceedings are reinstated, the appeal from the incompetency 

finding and commitment becomes moot. (See People v. Lindsey (1971) 

20 Cal.App.3d 742, 743–744.) 

But even if the appeals are not moot, our review of the record discloses 

no arguable issues. The finding that Jackson was not competent to stand 

trial is supported by substantial evidence. The commitment ordered by the 

court is authorized by law. Jackson was at all times represented by able 

counsel. 

DISPOSITION 

The orders in cases Nos. 2-330678-4 and 5-191723-6 finding Jackson 

incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the Department of State 

Hospitals are affirmed. The appeal for case No. 2-331222-0 is transferred to 

the appellate division of the superior court. 
6

_________________________

Richman, Acting P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

Miller, J.

_________________________

Mayfield, J. *

People v. Jackson (A162659) 

*Superior Court of Mendocino County, Judge Cindee Mayfield, sitting as 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.