People v. Johnson CA2/4

Filed 3/20/26 P. v. Johnson CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B343067 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. GA030918)

v.

LAMIN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Dismissed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Deepti Vaadyala, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Lamin Johnson appeals from an order denying his postjudgment motion to reconsider a restitution fine previously imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4.1 We dismiss.

BACKGROUND In 1999, defendant was convicted of 18 felony offenses (e.g., §§ 187, subd. (a), 664/187, subd. (a), 591, 487, subd. (d), 459, 236, 664/215, subd. (a), 211, 12023; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor offense (Veh. Code, § 10852) with various special circumstances (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(G)) and sentence enhancements (e.g., §§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 19 years and ordered to pay a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). A different panel of this court affirmed the judgment. (See People v. Johnson (June 18, 2002, B137441) [nonpub. opn.].) On November 19, 2024, defendant filed a postjudgment motion to reconsider the amount of restitution imposed and requested a hearing on his ability to pay. The same day, the court found it lacked jurisdiction and denied the motion. Defendant appealed.