People v. Jackson CA2/4

── People v. Jackson CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Jackson CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, B340777 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA120231 v. TYSHAUN JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa S. Coen, Judge. Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  In 2012, a jury convicted appellant Tyshaun Jackson and his codefendant of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and other offenses, and found that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). At Jackson’s trial, the court instructed the jury that it could convict him of murder if murder was a natural and probable consequence of an assault with a handgun that he aided and abetted. In other words, the jury was instructed on the now- invalid natural and probable consequences doctrine, which allowed it to convict Jackson of murder without necessarily finding that he harbored malice. In 2020, the trial court denied Jackson’s petition for relief under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), concluding the record of conviction demonstrated he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. In 2024, Jackson filed another petition for relief under section 1172.6, which the trial court denied based on the fact that Jackson had already previously petitioned for, and been denied, that same relief in a prior proceeding.2 On appeal, Jackson argues his case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing because he is prima facie eligible for section 1172.6 relief. The Attorney General does not attempt to refute Jackson is prima facie eligible for such relief. But the Attorney General asserts the trial court’s order denying relief 1 Subsequent unspecified references to statutes are to the Penal Code. 2 It appears the trial court may have mistakenly believed Jackson had an additional section 1172.6 petition denied in 2022. The augmented record suggests, and the parties agree on appeal, that the 2022 proceeding involved a habeas corpus petition and not a section 1172.6 petition. 2 should nonetheless be affirmed under collateral estoppel principles “even if [Jackson’s] initial [petition] was incorrectly denied.” We agree with Jackson. Although the Attorney General is correct that the elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, an equitable exception to that doctrine arises when there has been a significant change in the law since the initial ruling that warrants reexamination of the issue. (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 454 (Curiel).) As discussed in greater detail below, we conclude Jackson’s case falls within that equitable exception. Because the record demonstrates Jackson is prima facie eligible for relief under case law that has emerged since his original petition was denied in 2020, we remand the matter to the trial court with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing under section 117