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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
3