Opinion
E065299
01-03-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEREMIAH MATHEW JOHNSTON, Defendant and Appellant.
Jeremiah Mathew Johnston, in pro. per.; and Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1405349) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Jeremiah Mathew Johnston, in pro. per.; and Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 30, 2014, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Jeremiah Mathew Johnston with two counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years old under Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (a), and two counts of oral copulation with that same child under section 288.7, subdivision (b).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
On May 7, 2014, the trial court expressed doubt as to defendant's competence. Two doctors interviewed him. The court then determined that defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. Defendant pled not guilty.
On February 20, 2015, an Information charged defendant with essentially the same counts as the felony complaint. Defendant filed a motion to suppress certain inculpatory statements made to police. The motion was based on the alleged involuntariness of statements and violations under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. The People opposed the motion. The court conducted a hearing and concluded that there had been a Miranda violation during the first police interview, but there had been no Miranda violation during the second police interview. Consequently, defendant's confession during the second interview was admissible.
Defendant then withdrew his plea of not guilty. He pled guilty to the four counts and agreed to serve a term in prison of 40 years to life.
On January 28, 2016, defendant was sentenced to serve 40 years to life in state prison. The sentence included 25 years to life each for the two counts under section 288.7, subdivision (a), to be served concurrently. Defendant was also sentenced to 15 years to life each for the two counts under section 288.7, subdivision (b), to be served concurrently. The court ordered that the term of 25 years to life and the term of 15 years to life be served consecutively.
On January 28, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal. On February 8, 2016, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
Defendant admitted that the following facts were true: During the period between September 17, 2013, and April 23, 2014, he had sexual intercourse on two occasions with Jane Doe, who was 10 years old or younger. During that same period, he participated in two acts of oral copulation with Jane Doe.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. On November 17, 2016, defendant filed a seven-page typewritten brief. In his personal brief, defendant essentially argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession. In his brief, defendant describes in detail as to why he believes his confession was coerced. Defendant stated: "I truly did not harm my own child. I truly did not think that I was going to get the help of an attorney until after I did what the detective told me to do. Please give me the chance to go back to court and be able to fairly present my case against the charges against me."
Section 1237.5 states, in part, as follows: "No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, . . . except where both of the following are met : [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court."
The issues raised in defendant's personal brief concern the determination of guilt or innocence or are not reviewable under section 1237.5. Defendant, in his amended notice of appeal, stated that his appeal was "based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea and do not affect its validity." Hence, defendant is precluded from obtaining review on the merits of issues challenging the legality of the proceedings and/or the validity of his plea. (See People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096-1097.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. SLOUGH
J.