People v. Johnson CA3

Filed 3/6/15 P. v. Johnson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C072730

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F05747)

v.

ANDREW JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Andrew Johnson appeals from a judgment of conviction following his no-contest plea. Defendant was charged with one count of felony possession of child pornography in violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a).1 Following his conviction on the plea, defendant was placed on probation, ordered to serve 360 days in the county jail, and required to register as a sex offender.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offense.

1

This appeal presents a single issue. Defendant contends that section 4852.03, which sets forth some of the requirements for obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation, violates his right to equal protection because it requires him to serve a longer period of rehabilitation than similarly situated offenders. The People contend that this issue is not justiciable because defendant has neither completed the shorter rehabilitation period that he contends should apply to him nor fulfilled the other statutory requirements, and is, thus, not yet eligible to petition for relief. Additionally, the People contend that even if defendant’s appeal was ripe, section 4852.03 does not violate defendant’s equal protection rights because he is not similarly situated to those offenders required to complete the shorter rehabilitation period. We conclude that defendant’s claim on appeal is not ripe. Defendant is not yet eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation even under the shorter period of rehabilitation he says should apply to him and he has not satisfied the other statutory requirements. Accordingly, any review of this issue on appeal would be advisory. We therefore dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Charges and Plea On September 6, 2011, the Sacramento County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with one count of felony possession of child pornography in violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a), in that “defendant did unlawfully and knowingly possess and control matter depicting a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in and simulating sexual conduct as defined under Penal Code Section 311.4(d).” On March 23, 2012, defendant pleaded no contest.2