Opinion
2d Crim. No. B301089
06-22-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Michael L. Tetreault, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. BA476552)
(Los Angeles County)
In March 2019, Z.C.H. lived in a Los Angeles apartment with five roommates. Around 11:30 p.m. one night, Z.C.H. finished working on his laptop and went to take a shower. When he returned, the laptop was missing. None of Z.C.H.'s roommates had taken it.
Z.C.H. reported the missing laptop to building security. Security footage showed a man enter Z.C.H.'s apartment and leave with an object that appeared to be a laptop under his arm. Z.C.H. and a security guard saw that man sitting on a couch in a common area of the apartment building. He ran as they approached. Z.C.H. followed, and retrieved a backpack the man dropped as he fled. Inside were items with appellant's name and other identifying information on them.
A jury subsequently convicted appellant of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a).) The trial court determined that he had suffered one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). It struck the prison priors and sentenced him to eight years in state prison: the middle term of four years on the burglary, doubled due to the prior strike.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On March 19, 2020, we advised appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) We do note one error in the abstract of judgment, however: Though the abstract correctly shows that the trial court imposed an eight-year prison sentence, it erroneously states that that sentence corresponds to a doubled upper term on first degree burglary. Eight years corresponds to a doubled middle term on first degree burglary, as the trial court correctly noted at sentencing. (See § 461, subd. (a).) The clerk of that court is ordered to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment, and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
TANGEMAN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
Laura F. Priver, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Michael L. Tetreault, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.