Opinion
F087020
10-15-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS, Defendant and Appellant.
James S. Donnelly-Saalfield, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. F22904417. William Terrence, Judge.
James S. Donnelly-Saalfield, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
INTRODUCTION
In 2022, appellant and defendant Johnny Lee Briggs (appellant) was sentenced to 50 years to life after being convicted of first degree murder with a firearm enhancement, and the judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. In 2023, the trial court denied appellant's "Motion to Dismiss."
On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. We affirm.
After notice to the parties and without objection, this court takes judicial notice of our own records in People v. Briggs (Sept. 18, 2023, F085346) [nonpub. opn.], and People v. Briggs (Mar. 7, 2024, F086768) [nonpub. opn.].
On October 5, 2022, after a jury trial, appellant was convicted in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F22904417 of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) with an enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).
All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
On November 2, 2022, the trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life for murder, and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
In 2023, this court filed the nonpublished opinion in appellant's direct appeal (People v. Briggs, supra, F085346) that ordered correction of the abstract of judgment and minute order, and affirmed the judgment as corrected. The Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for review.
THE INSTANT APPEAL
On June 20, 2023, while his direct appeal was pending, appellant filed, in propria persona, a preprinted form in case No. F22904417 entitled "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Demand for Trial (Penal Code section 1381)," and asserted the district attorney failed to comply with his "demand letter for trial" that was served on June 16, 2023, and the "information" should be dismissed. By interlineation, appellant wrote that the motion was also based on sections 1025, 1158, 29800, and 12022.7.
Under section 1381, "a criminal defendant who is sentenced to a crime has a right to demand that he be brought to trial and sentenced within 90 days in any other 'pending _ criminal proceeding,' anywhere in the state, in which he 'remains to be sentenced.'" (People v. Smith (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 399, 401.) Sections 1025 and 1158 address the right to a jury trial on prior conviction allegations. (People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 23.) Section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm. Section 12022.7 defines enhancements for the infliction of great bodily injury.
On July 24, 2023, the trial court summarily denied the motion.
On September 27, 2023, the trial court received a notice of appeal; appellant requested a certificate of probable cause and claimed various sentencing errors, violation of the "Three Strikes" law, and unspecified violations of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. The court denied the request.
On October 17, 2023, the notice of appeal was filed in this court, and we subsequently appointed counsel.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief also includes counsel's declaration that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. This court advised appellant by letter that he could file a supplemental letter or brief raising any arguable issues. Appellant did not do so.
Appellant's motion sought "dismissal" of the "information" that was filed in case No. F22904417-the case that already resulted in his murder conviction and indeterminate sentence, and the judgment is final.
Appellant's other statutory claims are not applicable to his case. He has already been tried and sentenced (§ 1381), he received a jury trial (§§ 1025, 1158), he was not convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and a great bodily injury enhancement was not found true (§ 12022.7).
After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order of July 24, 2023, denying appellant's motion to dismiss, is affirmed.
[*] Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.