People v. Jackson CA5

── People v. Jackson CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 P. v. Jackson CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F088950 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CF4517156) v. DESHAWN LEE JACKSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge. Candace Hale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; DeShawn Lee Jackson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Hannah Janigian Chavez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.  INTRODUCTION In 1994, appellant and defendant DeShawn Lee Jackson (defendant) was convicted after a bench trial of second degree murder with a firearm enhancement. He was sentenced to four years plus 15 years to life. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 In 2024, the trial court held there was a prima facie case for relief, issued an order to show cause (OSC), and conducted an evidentiary hearing. It reviewed the record from defendant’s bench trial, and denied the petition because it found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of murder as the actual killer. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to both People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant submitted a supplemental letter brief and argued the trial court violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection because he was convicted by a plea and not after a trial, and the court denied his petition without considering new evidence of actual innocence. We review the record and defendant’s arguments, and affirm the trial court’s denial of his petition. 1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Defendant filed his petition in 2022 under former section 1170.95, which was renumbered as section 1172.6, without substantive change on June 30, 2022. (People v. Saibu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 709, 714.) We refer to the statute by its current number throughout this opinion unless otherwise indicated. 2.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 On June 27, 1994, Gregorio Vello (Vello) was fatally shot in the parking lot of a liquor store on South Elm Avenue in Fresno.4 On July 25, 1994, defendant was charged by complaint with the murder of Vello with a firearm enhancement. On August 22, 1994, the court conducted the preliminary hearing and held defendant to answer. The Information On August 31, 1994, an information was filed charging defendant with the murder of Vello on or about June 27, 1994 (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), with personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)),