People v. Johnson CA3

California Court of Appeal Oct 17, 2014 No. C074325Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea, as the record supported the conclusion that the defendant was competent and that his plea was knowing and voluntary.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea.
Whether the defendant's cognitive impairments rendered his plea involuntary or unknowing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court could reasonably conclude that defendant was competent to enter his no contest plea, that any brain damage led to no more than relatively mild mental impairment, and his plea was knowing and voluntary.”

“An appellate court will not disturb the denial of a motion unless the abuse is clearly demonstrated.”

Filed 10/17/14 P. v. Johnson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Trinity)

THE PEOPLE, C074325

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F0015)

CLARENCE OLEN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Clarence Olen Johnson was charged with attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, 1192.7, subd. (c)),1 assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), criminal threats (§ 422), two counts of attempted assault with a deadly weapon (§§ 664/245, subd. (c)), felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)), and driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), along with personal use of a firearm, armed with a firearm, and three strike allegations (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b),

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022, former subd. (a)(1) & (5), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defendant entered an Alford plea of no contest to assault with a firearm and felon in possession of a firearm, and admitted a personal use of a firearm and a single strike allegation, with a stipulated term of 19 years 4 months; the remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.2 The trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and imposed the stipulated term. Having obtained a certificate of probable cause, defendant contends on appeal that the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea was an abuse of discretion. We shall affirm. BACKGROUND The Crimes On February 1, 2011, defendant threatened his daughter Lindsey Idler’s boyfriend Jeffrey Jann with a rifle during an argument between them. Idler tried to intervene; defendant pointed the rifle at her and pulled the trigger, but the weapon jammed. Proceedings After defendant initially entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), the trial court ordered defendant evaluated by two psychologists, Dr. Marilyn Wooley and Dr. David Wilson. Dr. Wilson’s report stated that during their interview, defendant “was alert and well oriented for time, place, person, and affect.” While digressing at times, “for the most part his thought processes were orderly and organized without any indications of thought disorder or psychotic processes.” Defendant’s “general vocabulary, word use, report of history, and ability to grasp ideas and concepts suggested

People v. Johnson CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C074325

CLARENCE OLEN JOHNSON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MAURO , J.

HOCH , J.

AI Brief