P. v. Jackson
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. | B187064 ( Super. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. George Gonzalez Lomeli, Judge. Dismissed.
________
Steven Graff Levine for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef and Juliet H. Swoboda, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney (Los Angeles), and Debbie Lew, Assistant City Attorney, as Amicus Curiae for Plaintiff and Respondent, upon the request of the Court of Appeal.
_________
Pursuant to a plea bargain, David Jackson pleaded no contest to possessing cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Jackson on probation on condition, among others, that he obey all laws and report to and obey all rules of the probation department. Shortly thereafter, Jackson's probation was revoked pending a hearing based on allegations that he (1) vandalized a police car (Pen. Code, § 594) while being detained for sitting on a curb in violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 41.18, subdivision (d),[1] and (2) failed to report to the probation department.
Jackson filed a motion to declare section 41.18, subdivision (d) unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court denied the motion but, after a contested hearing, found that Jackson did not violate his probation, which the court reinstated on the same terms.
Jackson appeals, contending that the court erred in rejecting his constitutional challenges to section 41.18, subdivision (d). Jackson concedes that, because the court found he did not violate his probation, his appeal â€
