1

Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Hickerson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN MICHAEL HICKERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

C098467

(Super. Ct. No. 20FE005074)

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. 

Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we will direct the trial court to correct 

the abstract of judgment and minute order to reflect the fines and fees imposed and stayed

during the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing. Finding no arguable error that 

would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm.
2

BACKGROUND

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. The People’s April 3, 2023, amended information charged defendant with two 

counts of sexual battery with unlawful restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a))1 and 

alleged these batteries were committed on separate occasions under section 667.6. 

At trial, the People presented evidence that defendant sexually assaulted his 

ridesharing service driver Rachael in April 2019. Rachael picked up two intoxicated 

passengers, including defendant. Following pickup, Rachael politely declined 

defendant’s repeated romantic advances. After completion of the ride, one passenger 

exited, but defendant wedged himself between the front seats, pressing himself against 

Rachael, and making it impossible for her to unfasten her seat belt to exit the car or reach 

her phone. Defendant kissed and sucked on Rachael’s neck, grabbed her breast 

(exposing it), and sucked on her nipple. Rachael immediately and repeatedly told 

defendant no, to stop, and to get out of the car, but he did not comply. Eventually, 

defendant exited the car after the other passenger intervened, and Rachael drove to a safe 

location to call 911. A medical exam revealed bruising on Rachael’s breast. During 

defendant’s police interview, he eventually admitted kissing Rachael’s neck and cheek, 

as well as grabbing and sucking on her breast. 

Defendant presented two character witnesses who attested that he was a respectful 

and nonaggressive person. Defendant also testified, admitting he had engaged in what he 

thought was consensual sexual contact with Rachael. 

The jury found defendant guilty on both counts, but found the allegation that the 

batteries were committed on separate occasions not true. 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

The trial court denied defendant’s request for probation and sentenced him to the 

lower term of two years in prison for each battery, staying the sentence on one count 

pursuant to section 654. The court awarded defendant 25 days of actual credit, plus 25 

days of conduct credit for a total of 50 days of custody credit. The court imposed but 

stayed “all fines and fees” and ordered victim restitution in an amount to be determined. 

Defendant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, 

and we received no communication from defendant. 

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to 

defendant, we affirm the judgment. However, our review of the record has revealed that 

the April 28, 2023, minute order as well as the abstract of judgment fail to acknowledge 

that the $300 restitution fine was stayed. Both documents fail to note that the trial court 

imposed and stayed two $30 conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373) and two $40 

court operations assessments (§ 1465.8). The abstract of judgment and minute order 

following sentencing must be corrected to reflect these changes. 
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court clerk is directed to correct the abstract of 

judgment and minute order after sentencing to correctly reflect the imposed and stayed 

status of the applicable fines and fees.

 /s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

 /s/

Robie, Acting P. J.

 /s/

Krause, J.