People v. Johnson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEVION DESEAN JOHNSON, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

Date published: Nov 20, 2008

No. A121419 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2008)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEVION DESEAN JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. A121419 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division November 20, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 050704098

Sepulveda, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on his plea. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant (originally charged with murder) was permitted to enter a plea of no contest to voluntary manslaughter, in return for being sentenced to a fixed term of 21 years in state prison (consisting of the aggravated term of 11 years, plus 10 years for the enhancement for use of a firearm).¹

1 As defendant pleaded to the charge, a detailed recounting of the underlying facts of the case are unnecessary. Defendant apparently supplied information regarding who murdered his friend, Jerrell Moore, to Demarco Francis. Defendant accompanied Francis and acted as a look-out while Francis shot at the individuals, killing one Michael Arnold. Defendant was prosecuted as an accomplice to the murder of Michael Arnold.

Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights prior to the entry of his plea, as well as the consequences of his plea. The court found the plea was free and voluntary, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. No error appears in the entry of his plea, or in the sentencing proceedings.² Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.

2 Defendant was sentenced to the aggravated term, as agreed upon in the negotiated disposition. Defendant thereby waived his right to a jury trial on the sentencing factors, and no Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 error appears. Indeed, the trial court specifically inquired of defense counsel, at the time of sentencing, whether there was a “Cunningham waiver,” and defense counsel indicated there was. (See People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 49-50; People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.)

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Reardon, Acting P. J., Rivera, J.