People v. Johnson CA1/1

Filed 3/16/23 P. v. Johnson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166399

v. (Contra Costa County WAYNE JEROME JOHNSON, Super. Ct. No. 05- 1905900) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Wayne Jerome Johnson was convicted, following a jury trial, of stalking, two counts of corporal injury to a person with whom he had a dating relationship, stalking in violation of a restraining order, and assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also found true that he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon. The court sentenced defendant to six years in prison. Defendant appealed, asserting he was entitled to resentencing based on statutory changes to Penal Code sections 654 and 1170. This court agreed and remanded the matter “to the trial court to determine whether the sentencing issues raised in connection with Penal Code sections 654 and 1170, as amended by Assembly Bill [No.] 518 [(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)] and Senate Bill [No.] 567 [(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)], respectively, are moot and, if not, to vacate and resentence defendant in accordance with those provisions.” On remand, the trial court sentenced defendant to five years.

1

Defendant appeals from the judgment following resentencing on remittitur. His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but asking this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel notified defendant of his right to file a supplement brief, and defendant has filed a brief requesting “relief based upon the issues he raised during resentencing about the two strikes and their illegality.” We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal requiring further briefing and affirm. BACKGROUND1 “Jane Doe and defendant began dating after meeting at . . . a salsa dance club that they both frequented. They dated on and off for approximately seven months until Doe ended the relationship. According to Doe’s testimony, their relationship was punctuated with instances of domestic violence and harassment, which then continued after she attempted to end the relationship.” (People v. Johnson, supra, A159389.) “Defendant was charged by information with stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a); count 1), two counts of infliction of corporal injury on a person with whom he had a dating relationship (id., § 273.5, subd. (a); counts 2 & 4), stalking in violation of a restraining order (id., § 646.9, subd. (b); count 3), and assault with a deadly weapon (id., § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 5).