People v. Johnson CA4/3

Filed 8/24/20 P. v. Johnson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G056278

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17ZF0001)

KENNETH JOHNSON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Donahue, Judge. Affirmed in part, and remanded with directions. Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Quisteen S. Shum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent * * *

A jury found appellant Kenneth Johnson guilty of conspiracy to sell methamphetamine (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a), 11379; all further statutory citations are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated), conspiracy to sell heroin (§§ 182, subd. (a), 11352), and conspiracy to commit extortion (§§ 182, subd. (a), 518), and it found true related gang allegations. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true three of five prior strike conviction allegations, and two of four prior serious felony conviction allegations. The trial court sentenced Johnson to a total term of 35 years to life, consisting of a third-strike term of 25 years to life for conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, and concurrent terms of 25 years to life on the other two conspiracy counts. The court also imposed two five-year terms for the prior serious felony convictions. Johnson contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion. We conclude the evidence showed Johnson and two other persons agreed to collect a $2,500 “fine” imposed on the victim D.R. through the wrongful use of force and therefore substantial evidence supports the conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion. In a related argument, Johnson contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of evidence concerning D.R.’s death because the death of an unrelated victim was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. In light of our conclusion D.R. was the target of the conspiracy to commit extortion, the evidence of D.R.’s death was highly relevant. Johnson therefore has not shown trial counsel was ineffective. Johnson further contends the trial court violated state law and his Fourth Amendment right to due process by admitting expert testimony of case-specific facts that were beyond the expert’s personal knowledge and expertise in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). Because Johnson failed to object to the expert testimony on hearsay, due process or Sanchez grounds at trial, he forfeited this claim of