Filed 5/3/22 P. v. Jackson CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RODDRIC JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B315725

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA011198)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Dismissed. 

____________________________

Richard B. Lennon and Jill Ishida, under appointment by the 

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

In 1996, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Roddric 

Jackson of one count of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code,1 § 211.) 

The jury also found that Jackson was armed (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), 

and that he used a gun (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the commission of 

the offense.

2 The trial court found that Jackson had suffered two 

prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)−(i)), two serious felonies 

(§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and 

imposed an aggregate sentence of 47 years to life in prison, along 

with a restitution fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a parole 

revocation fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)).

In September 2021, Jackson filed a “Motion to Dismiss 

Restitution Order by the Court Pursuant to Assembly Bill 

[No.] 1869.”3 The superior court denied the motion on the ground 

that Jackson “has provided no compelling and extraordinary 

reasons to justify a waiver of the [f]ines and fees that were imposed 

in this case.” Jackson appealed.

We appointed counsel for Jackson, who filed a brief raising 

no issues and requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in

People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). Counsel 

provided Jackson with a copy of the record and the Serrano brief, 

and informed him that he had the right to file a supplemental brief. 

Jackson filed a supplemental brief on April 13, 2022.

1 Unless otherwise specified, subsequent statutory references 

are to the Penal Code. 

2 The jury also convicted Jackson of one count of unlawful 

driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), but 

we reversed that conviction on appeal. (People v. Jackson (Jul. 25, 

1997, B103732) [nonpub. opn.].)

3 Jackson was referring to Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019−2020 

Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 92).
3

DISCUSSION

When a defendant’s appointed counsel files a brief raising 

no issues in an appeal of a denial of postconviction relief, we follow 

the procedures set forth in Serrano: We are not obligated to review 

the record independently to determine whether there are any 

arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 

1023, 1039 (Cole), review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) The 

defendant has a right, however, to file a supplemental brief. (Ibid.) 

If he does so, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate any 

arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion 

that disposes of the trial court’s order on the merits.” (Id. at 

p. 1040.)

Jackson does not make a legal argument in his supplemental 

brief in support of his request to reduce his restitution fine. 

Instead, he notes that he has managed to pay a little less than

half of the $10,000 fine during the 27 years he has served in 

prison. According to Jackson, “it’s hard to take care of myself 

after restitution is taken monthly from my prison wages.” This 

has been especially true recently, as prices for goods in prison have 

increased.

We sympathize with Jackson’s plight, but the law does not 

allow us to reduce or overturn his restitution fine. A defendant 

may appeal “[f]rom any order made after judgment, affecting the 

substantial rights of the party” (§ 1237, subd. (b)), but it is long 

established that this does not include the right to appeal the 

denial of a motion that “merely asked the court to repeat or 

overrule a former ruling on the same facts.” (People v. Rick (1952) 

112 Cal.App.2d 410, 412.) Nor may a defendant file a subsequent 

appeal to contest “matters that could have been reviewed on timely 

appeal from the judgment.” (People v. Howerton (1953) 40 Cal.2d 

217, 220.) There is no indication that the law has changed in a 
4

way that would allow Jackson to seek a reduction or reversal 

of his restitution fines. Assembly Bill No. 1869, which Jackson 

cited in his petition in the superior court, does provide relief 

from certain administrative fees imposed on criminal defendants, 

including probation supervision fees (see People v. Clark (2021) 67 

Cal.App.5th 248, 259−260), but the law does not abolish restitution 

fines or parole revocation fines. 

A subsequent statute, Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021−2022

Reg. Sess.), amended section 1465.9 to provide that, “[o]n and 

after January 1, 2022 the balance of any court-imposed costs 

pursuant to [s]ection . . . 1202.4 . . . as [that] section[ ] read[s]

on December 31, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible 

and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be 

vacated.” (§ 1465.9, subd. (b).) But the Legislature’s purpose 

in enacting this statute was “to eliminate the range of 

administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized 

to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and 

to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the 

imposition of administrative fees.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 257, § 2.) 

As part of this legislation, the Legislature repealed a provision 

allowing county boards of supervisors to “impose a fee to cover 

the actual administrative cost of collecting the restitution fine” 

(former section 1202.4, subdivision (l)), while leaving the rest 

of section 1202.4 intact. Thus, there is no indication that the 

Legislature meant to provide relief from restitution fines. 

The trial court’s order is not appealable, and we must 

therefore dismiss the appeal.
5

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

BENDIX, J.