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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

,

Defendant and Appellant. B30 7510

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. TA147671 )

APPEAL from a j udgment 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 in dependent review of the record

.

W e 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 s uffered 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 st ate 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 pris on 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

author ized 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, 1 241

. )3

subdivision (b), to provide for a one

- year prior prison term

sentence enhancement only fo r sexually violent offenses as

defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600,

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

did we.

We affirmed J ackson’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 s entenced Jackson to a four

year 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 o n 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 wishe d the

court to consider. We have received no response.

W e have examined the record and are satisfied Jackson ’s

appointed appellate counsel f ully 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.