People v. Johnson CA3

Filed 8/8/25 P. v. Johnson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C100907

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE002027)

v.

JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Edward Johnson appeals a sentence imposed on remand at his second resentencing hearing. He complains the trial court erred in failing to reimpose a sentence on count two prior to staying that count pursuant to Penal Code section 654, requiring reversal and remand for another resentencing hearing.1 Having reviewed the arguments and the record, we conclude that remand for yet another resentencing hearing is an unnecessary waste of judicial resources. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

to impose the six-year sentence previously imposed on count two, the execution of which will remain stayed pursuant to section 654. We will affirm the judgment as modified. I. BACKGROUND A jury convicted defendant of corporal injury on a dating partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a)—count one), with an enhancement for personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)—count two). The jury also found true allegations that defendant committed a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In January 2018, the trial court denied defendant’s Romero2 motion and imposed an aggregate sentence of 11 years comprised of: six years (the midterm doubled) for count one, plus four years for the enhancement, plus one year for the prior prison term. The court stayed a six-year sentence for count two pursuant to section 654. Defendant appealed and another panel of this court affirmed his conviction but remanded the matter for the trial court to strike the prior prison term enhancement invalidated by the passage of Senate Bill No. 136 (stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1) and to conduct a resentencing hearing. (People v. Johnson (Aug. 19, 2021, C086308) [nonpub. opn.].) In April 2022, the trial court held a resentencing hearing, struck the invalidated one-year prior prison term enhancement, and resentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 10 years comprised of: six years (the midterm doubled) for count one, plus four years for the enhancement. As to count two, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years (the midterm doubled) to run concurrent rather than staying the sentence pursuant to section 654. (People v. Johnson (July 21, 2023, C096233) [nonpub. opn.].) Nothing in the record explained the trial court’s decision to change this portion of defendant’s