People v. Johnson CA2/5

Filed 8/28/23 P. v. Johnson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B323339

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA077624) v.

FREDERICK MARK JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

Frederick Mark Johnson pleaded no contest to two counts of robbery. (Pen. Code,1 § 211; counts 1 and 3). With respect to count 1, Johnson admitted the allegation that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that he suffered a prior strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12). He also agreed to a waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, which required him to make restitution to victims in all counts that were dismissed per the plea agreement. Johnson filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea, which the trial court denied on June 16, 2022. He was sentenced to the negotiated term of 15 years in prison. Johnson timely appealed the judgment and the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. On October 14, 2022, this court issued an order limiting the issues in this case to those not requiring a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On May 17, 2023, we advised Johnson that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Johnson requested and was granted a 30-day extension of the deadline to submit issues or contentions. No response has been received to date. We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issues exist and that Johnson’s counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)