People v. Johnson CA1/3

Filed 1/28/25 P. v. Johnson CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170773 v. LACEDRIC JOHNSON, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC036915A) Defendant and Appellant.

Lacedric Johnson appeals from a postconviction order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 sections 1170.91, 1172.1, and 1172.75. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Johnson subsequently filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf challenging the court’s order regarding his section 1172.75 claim.2 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 On January 6, 2025, Johnson filed a second supplemental brief, which

restated and expanded on the same arguments raised in his initial supplemental brief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1996, a jury found Johnson guilty of carjacking (count 1) and assault with a firearm (count 2). The jury also found true sentencing enhancements for personal use of a firearm and infliction of great bodily injury, and the court found true a prior serious felony offense and prior prison term enhancements. The trial court sentenced Johnson to a total term of 36 years in state prison, which was comprised of (1) nine years on count one, doubled, (2) ten years for the personal use of a firearm enhancement, (3) three years for the infliction of great bodily injury enhancement, (4) five years for a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, and (5) a concurrent term of four years on count 2, doubled. No sentence was imposed for the prior prison term enhancement, as it was either stayed or stricken. In 2022, Johnson filed a petition for resentencing. He requested the court strike his prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) (section 667.5(b)) because “it is now an illegal conviction.” The district attorney opposed the motion on the basis that the court did not impose a sentence in connection with the prior prison term enhancement. At the hearing, the parties agreed “there was no [section] 667.5(b) prior,” and the prosecutor noted the“[d]efense wanted it stricken for all purposes, and I don’t have a problem with that if the Court is willing to do that. It would leave the original sentence.” Defense counsel requested the court issue “a new abstract” with “all the other terms being the same.” The court granted the petition and struck the prior prison term enhancement. In 2024—with only ten months remaining in his sentence—Johnson filed a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to the veteran’s resentencing