People v. Johnson CA1/1

Filed 12/11/25 P. v. Johnson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171462 v. DARRYL JOHNSON, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 21NF-008659) Defendant and Appellant.

After appointed counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues on appeal following the procedures approved by People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, Darryl Johnson filed a supplemental brief1 challenging the denial of his motions to modify his sentence. He also asked this court to “grant [his] direct appeal.” We affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Johnson was charged in 2021 with second degree robbery (Pen. Code § 212.5, subd. (c)),2 misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health and Saf. Code, § 11364), and misdemeanor possession of burglary tools.

1 In his brief, defendant spells his first name Darrell. As the Felony Abstract of Judgment submitted with his notice of appeal identifies him as Darryl Johnson, this is the name we use. 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(§ 466.) The pleading further alleged he employed a dangerous or deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), had suffered two prior “strike” convictions (§ 1170.12), and had suffered two serious or violent felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). A jury returned verdicts of guilt on the robbery and drug charges, and found the arming enhancement true. Johnson was sentenced in July of 2022 to 12 years in prison, calculated as the sum of the middle-term for robbery doubled (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), plus a one-year consecutive term for the arming enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and a five-year consecutive term for one of the two enhancements per section 667, subdivision (a). Another five-year term for a prior serious felony enhancement was stayed. Johnson appealed the convictions. (See People v. Johnson (May 29, 2024, No. A166220) [nonpub. opn.].) In May 2024, a panel of this division determined the trial court had erred in staying, rather than dismissing, Johnson’s second five-year term for a prior serious felony enhancement. A limited remand was ordered to allow the trial court either to strike the second enhancement or to strike the punishment for the enhancement. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. In June 2024, Johnson filed his first motion for modification of his sentence. The motion sought relief under Senate Bill No. 81 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 81) which—effective January 1, 2022 (seven months before Johnson’s sentencing hearing)—amended section 1385 “to provide guidance regarding the exercise of discretion in dismissing sentencing enhancements.” (People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233, 238; Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1.) On July 18, 2024, Johnson filed two additional motions to modify his sentence. The first invoked the relief afforded by Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017–