People v. Jackson CA3

Opinion

Filed 8/18/26 P. v. Jackson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento)

THE PEOPLE, C103946 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE020421) v. STEPHEN JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Stephen Jackson appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. Appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Jackson filed a supplemental brief challenging the denial of his section 1172.6 petition and raising numerous claims of trial error. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2022, a jury found Jackson guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true that he personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Jackson to an aggregate prison term of 26 years to life.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 In May 2025, Jackson petitioned for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. Jackson argued that new evidence established that the key witness was not credible and Jackson had acted in self-defense. This was not Jackson’s first section 1172.6 petition — in 2024, the trial court denied Jackson’s prior petition, reasoning he was ineligible for relief because his conviction and sentencing occurred after Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017- 2018 Reg. Sess.) and its changes to murder liability had gone into effect. On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s order. (People v. Jackson (Mar. 24, 2025, C101170) [nonpub. opn.].)2 The trial court also denied two subsequent petitions filed in February 2025. Citing the same reasons as in 2024, the trial court in May 2025 denied Jackson’s section 1172.6 petition at issue here. Jackson timely appealed. DISCUSSION We evaluate the specific arguments presented in Jackson’s supplemental brief but need not independently review the record for error. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232.) In his supplemental brief, Jackson asks us to consider that the key witness had an affair with the victim, the victim had previously tried to harm Jackson, the key witness had taken out an illegal life insurance policy on him, the key witness stole money and other valuable objects from him, and the key witness and the victim threatened to kill him. We find Jackson’s arguments meritless because an appeal from a denial of a section 1172.6 petition is “not a direct appeal,” and the statute “does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility [for resentencing] on the basis of alleged trial error.” (People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438; see also People v. Bratton (2023)

2 On our own motion we take judicial notice of our prior opinion in case No. C101170.

2 95 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1127 [“ ‘ “The purpose of section [1172.6] is to give defendants the benefit of amended sections 188 and 189 with respect to issues not previously determined, not to provide a do-over on factual disputes that have already been resolved” ’ ”]; People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 458 [“Appellant cannot use a section 1172.6 resentencing hearing to relitigate facts already determined, whether by plea, admission, or verdict”].) Accordingly, Jackson has not established that the trial court erred in denying his petition. DISPOSITION The trial court’s order denying Jackson’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

/s/ EARL, P. J.

We concur:

/s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.

/s/ FEINBERG, J.