Filed 5/10/21 P. v. Jackson CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B307510

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA147671)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Sean D. Coen, Judge. Affirmed. 

Aurora Elizabeth Bewicke, under appointment by the 

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. 

___________
2

Anthony Jackson appeals from the judgment entered 

following this court’s remand for resentencing in light of the 

enactment of Senate Bill No. 136 (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1)

(Senate Bill 136), effective January 1, 2020. No arguable issues 

have been identified by Jackson’s appointed appellate counsel

following her review of the record. We also have identified no 

arguable issues after our own independent review of the record. 

We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Jackson was convicted following a jury trial of carrying a 

concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310)1 with true findings 

by the court in a bifurcated proceeding that he had suffered one 

prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of 

the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and had 

served four prior separate prison terms for felonies (§ 667.5, 

subd. (b)). Jackson was sentenced to a five-year state prison 

term: the middle term of two years for carrying a concealed dirk 

or dagger, doubled under the three strikes law, plus one year for 

one of the prior prison terms. 

On appeal Jackson argued this court should strike all four 

one-year prior prison term enhancements, whether imposed or 

stayed,2 pursuant to Senate Bill 136, which was signed into law 

after Jackson was sentenced, and which amended section 667.5,

1 Statutory references are to this code.

2 At the time Jackson was sentenced, the court was not 

authorized to stay a prior prison term enhancement alleged and 

found true pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The 

enhancement had to be imposed or struck. (See People v. Lua

(2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1020; People v. Langston (2004) 

33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241.)
3

subdivision (b), to provide for a one-year prior prison term

sentence enhancement only for sexually violent offenses as

defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600,

subdivision (b). The Attorney General agreed with Jackson, as

did we.

We affirmed Jackson’s conviction, vacated his sentence and 

remanded the cause with instructions to the trial court to strike 

the one-year prior prison term enhancements and to resentence 

Jackson. (People v. Jackson (July 21, 2020, B301125 [nonpub.

opn.].)

On remand the trial court followed our direction, struck all

prior prison term enhancements and sentenced Jackson to a fouryear state prison term (the middle term of two years for carrying 

a concealed dirk or dagger, doubled under the three strikes law). 

Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Jackson on appeal. 

After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. 

Appointed counsel advised Jackson on January 21,2021 that he

may personally submit any contentions or issue he wished the 

court to consider. We have received no response.

We have examined the record and are satisfied Jackson’s

appointed appellate counsel fully complied with the 

responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. 

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 

441-442.)
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.