People v. Johnson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND EDWARD JOHNSON, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba)

Date published: May 19, 2020

C090313 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 19, 2020)

Opinion

C090313

05-19-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND EDWARD JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.

HULL, Acting P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF170053703)

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

In 2017, defendant Raymond Edward Johnson pleaded no contest to one count of receiving stolen property with a value over $950. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a) [statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code].) The trial court granted formal probation.

Later, on two separate occasions, defendant admitted that he violated the terms of probation, and probation was reinstated each time.

In July 2019, defendant admitted a third probation violation. The trial court sentenced defendant to "the mid term, two years' straight time" to be served in county jail pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(A).

The trial court imposed a $300 probation revocation fine, a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court also awarded 301 days of credit.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and a request for a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/_________

HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
MURRAY, J. /s/_________
KRAUSE, J.