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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.11 15.

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. B 31 5 7 25

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. M A 01 1198 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert G. Chu , Judge. Dismiss ed

.

____________________________

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 : W e 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 require d 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 i n his supplemental
brief in support of his request to re duce 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
ha s been especially true recent ly, 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 f

ormer 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

21 7, 220 .) There is no indication that the law has changed in a4

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
fr om 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 ( 20 21 −202 2 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 Decemb er 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 t hat 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 re peal ed 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, t h ere 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 PUBLIS HED

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:

CHANEY , J.

BENDIX , J.