Court Opinion

ID: 9558201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:04:17.286752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:03.199325
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/21/23 P. v. Jackson 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097496

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. CRF2200102)

           v.

 ARRON JAMIEREJOE JACKSON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Arron Jamierejoe Jackson 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.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                      FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
       Defendant met 18-year-old Z.M. online. After numerous conversations that
included defendant telling Z.M. she was beautiful and expressing concern for her welfare,
defendant told Z.M. “he could make her money. . . he would elevate her and . . . he
wanted to sell her for sex and . . . he could provide for her.” Z.M. agreed to meet
defendant in person, and they met in Houston, Texas.
       Initially, defendant told Z.M. she should not have to prostitute herself but would
recruit other girls for him to prostitute. He said he would send Z.M. to cosmetology
school. His demands changed, and eventually, he required Z.M. to earn $1,000 a day
prostituting herself to numerous “clients.” She worked for defendant in numerous cities
throughout California and gave all the money she earned to defendant.
       Eventually, defendant became violent with Z.M. Defendant would often punch
her in the face when she refused to work; he punched her in the face and “beat her” when
someone paid her with counterfeit money. In January 2022, she was raped by a group of
men. Defendant picked her up and took Z.M. to the hospital because she had vaginal and
anal tearing. They left before the assault could be reported to the police.
       Z.M. went to her aunt’s house and slept for a few hours. Defendant then
demanded she wake up and meet a client. Z.M. refused. Defendant pulled her off the
couch by her ankles, causing her head to hit the floor, then punched her repeatedly. He
grabbed her by the hair and dragged her toward the door. Z.M. broke free, grabbed a
knife, and cut defendant’s face. Defendant offered to take her to the bus station so she
could go home to Texas. While they were “driving around,” Z.M. became afraid and
called her mother and her sister. Defendant and Z.M. were soon stopped by local law
enforcement.
       The People charged defendant with human trafficking to commit another crime
(Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (b); statutory section citations that follow are found in the

                                              2
Penal Code unless otherwise stated), pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a)), pandering by procuring
(§ 266i, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11350, subd. (a)). The trial court appointed the public defender’s office to represent
defendant and defendant entered a plea of not guilty.
       After arraignment, and without the assistance of counsel, defendant filed
numerous motions with the trial court, including a motion for peremptory challenge, a
motion to suppress evidence, and a motion to dismiss. Defendant then moved the court
to appoint new counsel. After hearing from defendant, the court denied his motion to
appoint new counsel. The court subsequently struck the remaining motions filed by
defendant, noting counsel was appointed and “once counsel is appointed, the attorney has
to file all the paperwork.”
       Defendant changed his plea; pleading no contest to pimping and agreeing to the
low term of three years. The parties stipulated the preliminary hearing transcript would
serve as the factual basis. Defendant waived the probation report and the trial court
sentenced him consistent with the terms of his plea agreement. The court awarded him
476 days of custody credit, imposed mandatory fines and fees, and ordered the remaining
charges dismissed. Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.

                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and asks 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 his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the
date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not
filed a supplemental brief.

                                             3
      Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the
judgment.

                                     DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                HULL, J.

We concur:

EARL, P. J.

MESIWALA, J.

                                            4