Filed 12/29/20 P. v. Jackson CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AL TYRONE JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B304102

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA070291)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Charles Chung, Judge. Vacated and remanded 

with directions.

Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant. 

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne, Supervising 

Deputy Attorney General, and Christopher G. Sanchez, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant Al Tyrone Jackson (defendant) 

admitted violating the conditions of his probation, but he said he 

was admitting the violation because he planned to challenge the 

sufficiency of the evidence against him on appeal. The law does 

not permit that, but the trial court did not correct defendant or 

advise him such an appellate challenge would not be permitted. 

The Attorney General concedes defendant is entitled to withdraw 

his admission as the result of the court’s failure to correctly 

advise defendant, and we agree. 

I. BACKGROUND

In 2019, defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly 

weapon. By the time of sentencing, defendant had accrued 1,945 

custody credits. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court 

imposed a ten-year prison term, with the execution of that 

sentence suspended, and five years of formal probation. 

Defendant was ordered to complete three types of counseling, 

including domestic violence counseling. 

Later that year, the trial court held a hearing to consider 

defendant’s progress on probation. The Probation Department 

reported defendant was not in compliance with the terms of his 

probation because he enrolled in an unapproved domestic 

violence program. The Probation Department recommended 

defendant “be found in violation and that probation be revoked 

and a suitable sanction be imposed.” The court remanded 

defendant into custody pending a probation violation hearing.

At the violation hearing, the trial court indicated—over the 

People’s objection—it would sentence defendant to a year in 

county jail if he admitted the violation and “waive[d] all back 

time,” i.e., all the custody credits he previously earned. The court 
3

asked defendant if he would agree to waive his custody credits 

and defendant replied, “I will waive on the conditions I can file an 

appeal”—adding, “Can I do that?” The court responded: “You 

can file an appeal no matter what. Yes.” The court then asked 

defendant why he wanted to appeal and he replied: “You say that 

I didn’t register in a program that was certified and the program 

is certified.” The court told defendant he was entitled to contest 

the probation violation allegations at a hearing, but defendant 

replied he would “just appeal it.” The court responded: “Okay. 

Got it. But you still want to admit?” Defendant said, “I’m going 

to admit, but I will file an appeal.”

Defendant proceeded to admit the violation and the court 

imposed the indicated sentence. Defendant then filed a notice of 

appeal, with a request for a certificate of probable cause, which 

the court granted. 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends, and the Attorney General agrees, the 

trial court did not properly advise defendant about his right to 

appeal when he admitted violating the terms and conditions of 

his probation. We agree the court did not correct defendant’s 

mistake of law and we will accordingly remand with directions to 

permit defendant to withdraw his admission, if he so chooses.

“When a trial court has agreed to preserve a defendant’s 

right to appeal in a manner contrary to law, or has purported to 

confer a right to appeal where none exists, and the defendant has 

relied on the promise to his detriment” the defendant is entitled 

to withdraw his or her plea or admission. (People v. Thurman

(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36, 42-43; accord, People v. Coleman

(1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 287, 292-293.) That is what happened here. 
4

Defendant agreed to admit the probation violation only on the 

condition that he could appeal and argue there was in fact no 

violation (because the domestic violence program he enrolled in 

was approved). That is not permissible (see, e.g., In re Chavez

(2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 649), but the court did not correct 

defendant’s mistaken impression when he directly asked whether 

he could take such an appeal. The record therefore shows 

defendant admitted the probation violation in reliance on the 

court’s faulty advice, and that fatally undermines the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded to the 

trial court with directions to permit defendant to withdraw his 

admission to the probation violation if he so chooses. If 

defendant opts not to withdraw his admission, the trial court 

shall reinstate the judgment. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.