Opinion
B296406
12-23-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEO JEROME JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA061235) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Jurors convicted defendant Leo Jerome Johnson of two counts of second-degree murder each with a firearm enhancement. We affirmed defendant's convictions (People v. Johnson (Dec. 3, 2018, B280365) [nonpub. opn.]), but remanded the matter so that the trial court could exercise discretion granted under recent amendments to Penal Code section 12022.53 to strike the firearm enhancements in the interests of justice. Upon remand, defendant moved to strike the firearm enhancements, which the People opposed. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant appealed.
We incorporate our discussion of the factual and procedural background of this case in People v. Johnson, supra, B280365.
Under the authority of People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, defendant also sought either to dismiss or stay imposition of certain fines, fees, and assessments on the theory that there was no ability to pay hearing and had there been one, the trial court would have concluded defendant would not have had the ability to pay the fines, fees, and assessments. In its opposition to defendant's motion, the People did not address this argument. On remand, and after ordering a financial evaluation, the trial court stayed the $10,000 restitution fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). The amended abstract of judgment reflects that the trial court imposed court security fees of $80 pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 and criminal assessment fees of $60 pursuant to Government Code section 70373. --------
After examining the record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by this court of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he filed no brief. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's attorney has complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110-111; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see also Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BENDIX, J. We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
JOHNSON, J.