People v. Johnson CA2/4

Filed 9/1/16 P. v. Johnson CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B266775

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA417798) v.

LEO JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed and Dismissed. Maxine Weksler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Leo Johnson was charged by information with two counts: criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)),1 and resisting an executive officer (§ 69). According to testimony at his preliminary hearing, defendant threatened to assault Laura Martinez, the manager of a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant, because defendant was dissatisfied with the preparation of his two chicken sandwiches and believed Martinez was racist. When Los Angeles Police Officer Carlos Gonzalez and his partner tried to take defendant into custody, defendant physically resisted. In October 2013, defendant was granted pro. per. status, which was revoked in January 2014. His appointed counsel declared a doubt as to his competency to stand trial, and criminal proceedings were suspended. In August 2014, defendant was declared competent, criminal proceedings were reinstated, and his pro. per. status was restored. However, in September 2014, following defendant’s disruptive behavior, the court again revoked his pro. per. status. His reappointed attorney declared a doubt as to his competence. On February 5, 2015, the court declared defendant incompetent to stand trial, and suspended criminal proceedings for a second time. On March 6, 2015, this court accepted for filing defendant’s notice of appeal from the order finding him incompetent. Such an order is appealable if it is a final order in a special proceeding. (See People v. Fields (1965) 62 Cal.2d 538, 540.) However, the record fails to reflect any further action in this court on that appeal. In June 2015, defendant was declared competent, and criminal proceedings were reinstated. On September 22, 2015, after a jury trial had commenced, defendant accepted a negotiated disposition. The information was amended to allege two misdemeanor counts, disturbing the peace (§ 415, subd. (1)) as count 4 and resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) as count 5. Defendant pled no contest