People v. Johnson CA1/4

Filed 9/18/20 P. v. Johnson CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157468 v. (Sonoma County PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, Super. Ct. No. SCR722383) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 On a plea of no contest, Paul Samuel Johnson was convicted on two felony counts: first, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and second, criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to a prison term of five years four months, subject to earned presentence and conduct credits. Following his sentencing, Johnson submitted to the court a proposed notice of appeal along with a request for a certificate of probable cause. In his proposed notice of appeal, he indicated he wished to appeal based on postplea matters, i.e., sentencing. At the same time, he stated that he was challenging his plea because the jail records indicated he pled to Penal Code

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no 1

substantial issue of fact or law. (California Standards of Judicial Administration, § 8.1.)

1

section 245(a)(4), and he did not plead to that, but rather: “I took a plea deal for 1 non-violent strike for a ‘PC 422’ and a 2nd ‘Felony PC 242’ also non- violent and not a strike . . . .” Johnson also filed a motion to correct “sentencing errors” and a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the case in which he was sentenced (No. SCR722383) and two others (Nos. SCR714403 and SCR726327). Consistent with the issue raised in his proposed notice of appeal, Johnson’s habeas petition alleged that his sentence in this action (No. SCR722383) was illegal because it was based on charges to which he had not pled. More specifically, he stated that he entered pleas to violations of Penal Code sections 422 and 242: “I plead to a PC 242 felony non-violent but probation & the jail have it as a PC 245(a)(4) violent strike, this is an illegal sentence and error!” In court proceedings shortly after seeking a certificate of probable cause to appeal, moving for correction of sentencing errors, and filing his petition for habeas corpus, Johnson and his counsel made the following statements on the record in postsentencing proceedings concerning the calculation of his sentencing credits: “DEFENSE COUNSEL: Mr. Johnson is requesting to apologize to the court. He did file some motions with the court as far as whether or not he understood what he pled to. I’ve discussed that with him and he would like to withdraw—I don’t know if the court has received those. [¶] THE DEFENDANT: I filed a motion to correct sentencing error because I thought it was a 242 that I pled to, but it was a 245. I didn’t understand that, I thought it was a third strike. I freaked out and filed some motions. I understand now. The jail told me it is a third strike. I got some bad information. Now I understand that it is not, I don’t want to proceed with the sentencing error and the habeas corpus that I filed.”