From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Johnson

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 13, 2024
No. E082505 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 2024)

Opinion

E082505

06-13-2024

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATT JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Stephanie M. Adraktas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FVI21000477 Rasheed Alexander, Judge. Affirmed.

Stephanie M. Adraktas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

McKINSTER ACTING P. J.

Defendant and appellant Matt Johnson pled guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under the age of 16. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1), counts 2 &3.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to three years eight months of imprisonment.

All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether this court has jurisdiction to review the trial court's order granting the People's motion for disclosure of purported attorney-client communications.

Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause as part of his notice of appeal, in which defendant raised the issue of whether the court erred in granting the People access to the purportedly protected documents. The court granted the request.

We offered defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties stipulated that the complaint and police reports would provide the factual basis for the plea. In her brief, appellate counsel notes, "Simultaneously with this brief, [defendant] has filed a request for judicial notice of this Court's files and records concerning [defendant's] request for a writ of prohibition under case number E078207." However, counsel never filed the request for judicial notice. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the record in case No. E078207, defendant's petition for writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's order unsealing a document contained on defendant's work computer and providing the People access to the document. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.).

On February 8, 2021, an officer was dispatched to a residence in reference to a reported crime against a child. The officer met with the 10-year-old victim, defendant's daughter, and defendant's wife. Defendant's wife reported to the officer that the victim indicated defendant would take the victim into his room when they were alone. He would lay her on the bed and rub her privates. Defendant told the victim to grab his penis, which she would. She would move her hand up and down defendant's penis until a sticky, clear, watery goo would come out. Defendant would also move the victim's "hips rapidly in an up and down motion."

Defendant told the victim not to tell her mother. She was not sure how many times the abuse occurred but described several incidents. She reported the abuse began when she was six years old.

Beginning on February 9, 2021, police made several attempts to locate defendant; an officer located and arrested him on February 11, 2021. After an officer issued a press release that day, another victim, who attended the high school at which defendant was an assistant principal, came forward with allegations that defendant had shown her pornography in the classroom.

On February 16, 2021, the People filed a felony complaint charging defendant with continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288.5, subd. (a), count 1). At an appearance on February 18, 2021, the court appointed counsel for defendant. At a hearing on March 1, 2021, the court relieved appointed counsel and permitted James McGee to substitute in as retained counsel for defendant.

On March 5, 2021, defense counsel filed a motion to recall and seal evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Defense counsel claimed that on February 8, 2021, defendant had retained attorney Seven Stolar to represent him. To assist in the representation, defendant allegedly drafted a chronology and summary on February 9, 2021, on his work laptop, which he subsequently modified and revised on February 10, 2021. He never transmitted the document to his attorney because the laptop was seized by law enforcement.

On March 9, 2021, the trial court ordered that no person open any files on defendant's work laptop; the court further ordered that any files already opened or printed not be disseminated.

On June 11, 2021, the People filed a motion for access to all the documents contained on the laptop. The People contended that because the laptop was given to defendant by his employer, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents. The People further argued that the chronology and summary was created prior to any attorney-client relationship.

The employee use of technology agreement as to the laptop, entered between defendant and his employer on August 18, 2007, included permission for personal use of the laptop within certain restrictions: "Any incidental personal use of district technology shall not interfere with district business and operations, the work and productivity of any district employee, or the safety and security of district technology." Among these restrictions is the following provision, under the heading "Privacy": "Since the use of district technology is intended for use in conducting district business, no employee should have any expectation of privacy in any use of district technology. [¶] The district reserves the right to monitor and record all use of district technology, including, but not limited to, access to the Internet or social media, communications sent or received from district technology, or other uses within the jurisdiction of the district. Such monitoring/recording may occur at any time without prior notice for any legal purposes including, but not limited to, record retention and distribution and/or investigation of improper, illegal, or prohibited activity. Employees should be aware that, in most instances, their use of district technology (such as web searches or emails) cannot be erased or deleted. [¶] All passwords created for or used on any district technology are the sole property of the district. The creation or use of a password by an employee on district technology does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy."

On August 31, 2021, defense counsel filed opposition to the People's motion. Defense counsel contended that whether the document was delivered to defendant's attorney was irrelevant for purposes of determining whether it was protected by attorneyclient privilege. On September 7, 2021, the People filed a supplementary motion to access the documents contained on the laptop.

On October 15, 2021, the court held a hearing on the People's motion. The court espoused a tentative ruling granting the People's motion on the basis that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his employer's laptop considering the employee use of technology agreement, which he signed. After argument by defense counsel, the court ordered that its tentative become its ruling. The court reasoned, "the bottom line is he used this computer, which he had signed a document saying he knew there was no expectation of privacy on the document."

On December 9, 2021, defense counsel requested the court continue the previous stay of the release of the documents on the laptop while defense counsel sought a writ of prohibition in this court. The court granted the request.

On December 13, 2021, defendant filed a petition for writ of prohibition in this court. On December 23, 2022, this court issued an order granting a limited stay requiring that "the documents and the laptop [] remain sealed pending determination of the petition on its merits or until further order of this court." This court invited the People to file a response to the petition, which they did. On January 31, 2022, this court denied the petition and lifted the stay. (Johnson v. Superior Court, E078207.)

On May 4, 2022, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The court held defendant to answer. On May 5, 2022, the People charged defendant by information with continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years. (§ 288.5, subd. (a), count 1.)

On August 4, 2023, defendant pled guilty to two added counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under the age of 16. (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), counts 2 & 3.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court dismissed the count 1 charge and sentenced defendant to three years eight months of imprisonment.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: RAPHAEL, J., MENETREZ, J.


Summaries of

People v. Johnson

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 13, 2024
No. E082505 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 2024)
Case details for

People v. Johnson

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Jun 13, 2024

Citations

No. E082505 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 2024)