Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Hilton Royce Jackson

July 19, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
HILTON ROYCE JACKSON, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 06F03218)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Hilton Royce Jackson, Jr., was found guilty by a Sacramento County jury of two counts of driving under the influence. Out of the jury's presence, defendant pled no contest to one count of driving with a suspended license. In a court trial, defendant was found to have a prior conviction for driving under the influence and to have served two prior prison terms. He was sentenced to state prison for five years.

Prior to trial, defendant moved to dismiss the case because the prosecution failed to bring him to trial within 90 days of his sending the Sacramento County District Attorney a Penal Code section 1381*fn1 (section 1381) demand for trial. The court denied the motion because defendant incorrectly sent the demand to the address of the Sacramento County Superior Court.

On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying his section 1381 demand. We Affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 5, 2006, defendant was charged in Sacramento County (the Sacramento case) with driving under the influence, driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or greater, and driving with a suspended license (count three). The complaint also charged him with a prior driving under the influence conviction and with having served two prior prison terms.

While the Sacramento case was pending, defendant was charged in El Dorado County (the El Dorado case) with driving under the influence and other offenses. On March 28, 2008, defendant was convicted in the El Dorado case of driving under the influence.

On March 30, 2008, while in the El Dorado County Jail, defendant sent section 1381 demands to the Sacramento County District Attorney and the Stanislaus County District Attorney, where he also had a case pending (Stanislaus case). Defendant addressed the demand for the Sacramento County case to the Sacramento County District Attorney at "720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA. 95814-1398," which is the address of the Sacramento County Superior Court, not the Sacramento County District Attorney. The demand listed defendant's release date as July 5, 2008. The demand in the Stanislaus case was correctly addressed to that county's district attorney and by letter dated May 22, 2008, the Stanislaus County District Attorney informed defendant the charges against him were being dropped.

When defendant, who was now imprisoned at the "California Men's Colony-West," had not received a reply from the Sacramento County District Attorney by June 5, 2008, he sent, on that date, another section 1381 demand, again wrongly addressing it to the district attorney at 720 9th Street. That demand was apparently forwarded by the superior court to the district attorney, who acknowledged its receipt on June 17, 2008.

On July 3, 2008, defendant was arraigned on the Sacramento case and the public defender was appointed to represent him. Counsel informed the court that defendant had made a section 1381 demand, though she did not specify the date of the demand. The prosecutor acknowledged receipt of the demand sent on June 5, 2008, but stated it was considered invalid because it was sent when defendant had less than 30 days remaining on his sentence. The matter was continued to July 8 for plea and further proceedings on the demand.

On July 8, 2008, the prosecutor informed the court that the only section 1381 demand received by the district attorney's office was the one sent from the California Men's Colony on June 5, 2008. Counsel for defendant stated she had documentation for the March 30, 2008 demand, but ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.