People v. Jackson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from judgments
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD302414, SCD296916, SCD298493, SCD299521
- Trial judge
- Dwayne K. Moring
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), William S. Dato, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court affirmed a plea agreement in which the defendant agreed to pay restitution for lost bail money despite not being convicted of the underlying failure to appear charge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after a Wende/Anders review.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Ordering $600 in victim restitution for lost bail money to I.G. despite the absence of a conviction for failure to appear (Pen. Code, § 1320.5).“Did the court impose an unauthorized sentence pursuant to section 1202.4, when it sentenced Jackson to a term in prison, and ordered him to pay $600 in victim restitution to I.G. to compensate her for the money that she lost when she paid for his bond and he then failed to appear, given that Jackson was not convicted of having failed to appear while on bail?” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not analyze the merits of the restitution issue. It stated it had reviewed the entire record and 'have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.' The court relied on the defendant's specific agreement in the plea agreement to pay restitution for the loss of bail money, which likely renders the issue waived or non-cognizable on appeal, but the opinion does not explicitly state this legal basis. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues and file a brief if none are found.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the court when counsel files a Wende brief.
- relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Permits a court to consider prior criminal history and factual background, including dismissed charges, when ordering restitution or sentencing, if the defendant waives the right to limit the court's consideration.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders disposition. It correctly identifies the procedural posture and the single issue raised by counsel. However, it fails to provide any legal reasoning for why the restitution order was not an error, relying solely on the statement that no arguable issues were found. While the plea agreement waiver likely supports the result, the court did not articulate this connection.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Dylan Jackson's negotiated guilty pleas resolving four cases, sentenced him to the agreed seven-year prison term, and ordered $600 in victim restitution to I.G. for bail money lost when he failed to appear, a charge dismissed under the plea agreement but covered by a Harvey waiver and an express restitution agreement. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only the restitution issue as a possible issue, Jackson filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgments.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order of $600 victim restitution to I.G. under Penal Code section 1202.4 for bail bond money lost due to Jackson's failure to appear, despite dismissal of the failure-to-appear count“Jackson specifically agreed he would pay restitution for the loss of bail money that resulted from his failure to appear.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Although victim restitution under section 1202.4 accompanying a prison term is ordinarily limited to losses caused by the offenses of conviction, the opinion recites that Jackson entered a Harvey waiver permitting the court to consider dismissed charges when ordering restitution and separately and specifically agreed to pay restitution for the bail money lost by his failure to appear. A defendant who bargains for and agrees to a restitution term as part of a plea cannot later claim it is unauthorized; the restitution was part of the negotiated disposition and the court sentenced in accordance with the agreement. The court did not spell out this analysis, but the facts it recites support the conclusion that no arguable issue exists. |
Judgments of conviction and sentence following guilty pleas in the four consolidated cases, reviewed under Wende/Anders for arguable issues“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying one possible issue, the defendant was offered and declined the chance to file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the entire record. Jackson received exactly the sentence he bargained for, and nothing in the recited record suggests a sentencing or plea defect. The opinion also adequately describes the offenses, the plea terms, and the issue raised, consistent with the content requirements for Wende opinions. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination of the record.
- relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Absent a waiver, a sentencing court may not consider facts underlying dismissed counts; a defendant may waive this protection in a plea agreement, permitting the court to consider dismissed charges at sentencing, including for restitution.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the Wende/Anders procedure and reached the right result, because the Harvey waiver and Jackson's express agreement to pay restitution for the lost bail money dispose of the only issue counsel flagged. The opinion does not, however, explain why the restitution order is authorized or cite the plea-bargain restitution authority, leaving the reader to infer the answer from the recited facts.
Opinion
Filed 5/11/26 P. v. Jackson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D085771, D085774, D085775, D085776 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD302414, SCD296916, SCD298493, DYLAN JACKSON, SCD299521)
Defendant and Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In January 2025, Dylan Jackson entered into a plea agreement that resolved four separate cases. In case SCD302414, Jackson pleaded guilty to making a criminal threat (Pen. Code,1 § 422), attempting to dissuade a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)), and inflicting corporal injury upon a person with whom he was dating resulting in a traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). In case SCD298493, Jackson pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Jackson also admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction. In case SCD299521, Jackson pleaded guilty to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In case SCD296916, the court found Jackson violated his probation. As part of the plea agreement, the People dismissed other counts and special allegations, including one count of failing to appear while on bail (§ 1320.5). Jackson agreed to be sentenced to seven years in state prison. He also agreed to a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, permitting the judge to consider his prior criminal history and the entire factual background of his case, including any unfiled, dismissed, or stricken charges, enhancements, allegations, or cases when, inter alia, ordering restitution. Jackson specifically agreed he would pay restitution for the loss of bail money that resulted from his failure to appear. Jackson was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal. We granted Jackson’s request to consolidate each case into this appeal. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel 1 Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 thoroughly reviewed the record and did not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified one issue that he considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the court impose an unauthorized sentence pursuant to section 1202.4, when it sentenced Jackson to a term in prison, and ordered him to pay $600 in victim restitution to I.G. to compensate her for the money that she lost when she paid for his bond and he then failed to appear, given that Jackson was not convicted of having failed to appear while on bail? We offered Jackson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel represented Jackson on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgments are affirmed.
BUCHANAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Harvey Crim 21022 · 1979-11-27
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12