People v. Johnson CA4/1

Filed 6/4/25 P. v. Johnson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082684

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD267741)

MARLON JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2019, a jury convicted Johnson of two counts of second degree murder and one count of unlawful discharge of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle, based on a shooting that took place in 2011. This is Johnson’s second appeal from his convictions. Johnson’s convictions were affirmed in a prior appeal, but the matter was remanded to the trial court to decide whether to exercise its discretion to strike one or more of three Penal Code

section 12022.53(d) enhancements the court had previously imposed and instead impose lesser included enhancements. On remand, the trial court declined to strike any of the section 12022.53(d) enhancements, instead electing to reimpose the same sentence it had previously imposed. Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating counsel found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to review the record for error as Wende and Anders require. We offered Johnson the opportunity to file his own brief, but after requesting and receiving multiple extensions of time, he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues for reversal. We therefore affirm. I. A.