1

Filed 11/24/20 P. v. Todd 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Yuba)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JACKLYN LORRAINE TODD,

Defendant and Appellant.

C091427

(Super. Ct. No. CRF1800130)

Appointed counsel for defendant Jacklyn Lorraine Todd filed an opening brief that 

sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine 

whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Thereafter, defendant filed a supplemental brief. Having reviewed defendant’s 

arguments and the record as required by Wende, we will affirm.
2

I. BACKGROUND

The People’s felony complaint charged defendant with assault with a deadly 

weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)—count 1)

1 and assault by means of force likely 

to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)—count 2). On January 31, 2018, 

defendant entered a conditional plea with a Cruz2 waiver of no contest to count 2 in 

exchange for probation and dismissal of count 1. The stipulated factual basis for her plea 

was the sheriff’s report, which indicated defendant had struck her ex-boyfriend in the 

head with a guitar causing a laceration on his scalp. The parties also stipulated to the 

unusual circumstance finding necessary to grant defendant probation. The matter was 

referred for a full sentencing report. 

On March 26, 2018, the trial court accepted defendant’s conditional plea and 

dismissed the remaining count. The court then suspended imposition of sentence and 

placed defendant on three years’ felony probation with various terms and conditions,

including that she “not batter, annoy, threaten or harass” the victim, J.M. The court 

imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $30 collection fee on that fine

(§ 1202.4, subd. (l)), a $300 suspended probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), 

a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment 

fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $70 workman’s compensation fee for her participation in 

the sheriff’s work program3(§ 1203.1b). The court also ordered defendant pay $40 each 

month for the costs of probation supervision (§ 1203.1b), $370 for the presentence report

(§ 1203.1b), a booking fee of $43.50 (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), and $100 for the cost of her 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5.

3 Defendant’s conditions of probation included that she complete 40 hours of the 

sheriff’s work program. 
3

public defender (§ 987.8). Finally, the court awarded defendant 14 days actual credit 

plus 14 days conduct credit for a total of 28 days custody credit. 

On October 10, 2018, the People filed a petition for revocation of probation 

alleging defendant violated her probation by breaking the law because she had been 

charged in another case with a misdemeanor count of inflicting injury on a present or 

former spouse, fiancé, or dating partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The parties resolved both 

matters by the People amending the violation petition to allege that defendant had 

battered, threatened, or harassed the victim, M.D., in violation of the probation condition 

that she obey all laws. Defendant admitted this violation and in exchange, the new case

was dismissed. The court reinstated defendant’s probation with an additional one day in 

county jail with credit for time served and 60 additional hours of the sheriff’s work 

program. The court also modified defendant’s probation to impose a condition that she 

stay 100 yards away from and have no contact with the victim, M.D. 

The People’s October 23, 2019 petition for violation of probation alleged 

defendant violated her probation by failing to: (1) report to her probation officer, (2) 

participate in and complete a domestic violence batter’s treatment program; and (3)

participate in and complete two treatment and education rehabilitation programs as 

directed by her probation officer. Defendant initially denied the allegations, but later 

admitted them on November 22, 2019. 

Thereafter, on December 23, 2019, the court denied defendant’s request for 

reinstatement of probation, finding her performance on probation had been “abysmal.”

The court sentenced her to the lower term of two years in state prison with credit for 64 

days actual custody credit and 64 days conduct credit for a total of 128 days custody 

credit. The court also lifted the suspension on the previously imposed $300 probation 

revocation restitution fine and imposed a $300 parole revocation restitution fine 

(§ 1202.45). Defendant timely appealed and did not request a certificate of probable 

cause. 
4

II. DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural 

history 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 her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days 

from the date the opening brief was filed. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, which 

we understand to argue the merits of the facts underlying her probation violations. 

Specifically, she complains that: (1) she should not have been found to have violated her 

probation where the charges against her for harming her fiancé, who was living in her 

apartment, had been dropped and (2) that did she not fail to obey the directions of her 

probation officer, including those related to treatment that defendant sought herself and 

then elected to stop after being accepted into college classes. 

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende and 

having considered defendant’s claims, we find no errors that would result in a disposition 

more favorable to her. Because defendant admitted her probation violations, her 

appellate challenge to their validity is prohibited unless she first obtains a certificate of 

probable cause. (People v. Sem (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1186-1187 [certificate of 

probable cause requirement applies to admissions of probation violations].) She has not 

done so.
5

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

ROBIE, J.