P. v. Johnson CA3 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 3/28/13 P. v. Johnson CA3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    COPY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
    (Shasta)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C070854
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                         (Super. Ct. Nos.
    MCRDCRF110000731,
    v.                                                                        MCRDCRF110004971)
    DAVID DOYLE JOHNSON,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    . Having
    reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
    the case.1 (See People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 110, 124.)
    1Our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report and is limited to the
    matters resolved by defendant’s plea.
    1
    In February 2011, in case No. MCRDCRF110000731, defendant David Doyle
    Johnson entered the residence of the victim, his former cohabitant, who was in the
    process of ending their relationship of several years. Defendant took the victim’s car
    keys, cellular phone and cash from her purse. They began to argue and, when the victim
    attempted to leave, he pushed her to the ground and struck her in the face. He would not
    allow her to leave the residence, nor would he return the cell phone so she could call law
    enforcement. The next day she contacted law enforcement after driving defendant to his
    residence.
    In November 2011, in case No. MCRDCRF110004971, defendant acknowledged
    to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Bad Check Unit that he had written a number of
    checks on accounts that had been closed or did not contain sufficient funds.
    Defendant pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen.
    Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 237)
    (case No. MCRDCRF110000731), and writing checks without sufficient funds (Pen.
    Code, § 476a, subd. (a)) (case No. MCRDCRF110004971). In exchange, several related
    counts and a strike allegation were dismissed. In addition, an unrelated infraction was
    dismissed with a Harvey waiver.2
    Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for
    three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days’ incarceration with
    credit for 365 days; he waived presentence credit in excess of that amount. Defendant
    was ordered to make restitution to his victims and to pay a $1,200 restitution fine (Pen.
    Code, § 1202.4), a $1,200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (Pen.
    Code, § 1202.44), a $200 fine (Pen. Code, § 672) plus penalty assessments, a $400
    domestic violence fine (Pen. Code, former § 1203.097, subd. (a)(5) [now $500]), a
    2   People v. Harvey (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 754
    .
    2
    $120 court operations fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $90 court facilities
    assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant was also ordered to pay costs of probation
    services and jail booking fees.
    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 have
    elapsed, and we have 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.
    MURRAY                  , J.
    We concur:
    BLEASE                , Acting P. J.
    MAURO                 , J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C070854

Filed Date: 3/28/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021