California Court of Appeal Feb 20, 2015 No. E061858Unpublished
Filed 2/20/15 P. v. Johnson CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061858
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1202652)
STEVEN LYNN JOHNSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael M. Dest,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Steven Lynn Johnson, in pro. per.; and Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Steven Lynn Johnson pled guilty to driving under the
influence of alcohol after suffering three prior convictions for driving under the influence
(count 1; Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550, 23550.5) and resisting an executive
1
officer (Pen. Code, § 69). Defendant additionally admitted allegations he had suffered
three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant
agreement includes a waiver of the right to appeal, defendant must obtain a certificate of
5
probable cause to challenge the court’s ruling on a motion to suppress]; People v. Suff
(2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1055-1056 [officer justified in commencing traffic stop when
officer was following behind a motorist who failed to signal the vehicle’s turn]; Hein v.
North Carolina (2014) 135 S.Ct. 530, 534-540 [stop of motorist based on officer’s
reasonable but mistaken belief that driver had violated the law did not make stop invalid];
People v. Rossetti (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1076-1077 [good faith exception
applicable to warrantless blood draw]; People v. Youn (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 571, 578-
579 [same]; People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 979 [trial court resolves issues of
credibility in ruling on motion to suppress].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
KING Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
Whether the defendant's claims regarding trial counsel, time waivers, and confinement conditions constitute cognizable issues on appeal.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”