People v. Johnson CA1/3 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/26/23 P. v. Johnson CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A166601
v.
EDWARD PAUL JOHNSON, (Mendocino County Super. Ct.
Nos. 21CR01499 & 21CR00692)
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Edward Paul Johnson was charged in Mendocino County
case number 21CR00692 with several drug charges. (Health & Saf. Code,
§§ 11351, 11359, subd. (b), 11391.1) He was also charged in Mendocino
County case number 21CR01499 with possession of a controlled substance
while armed with a loaded firearm (§ 11370.1, subd. (a)), possession of
cocaine and fentanyl for sale (§ 11351), and possession of a firearm by a felon
(Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). He pled no contest to one count of
possession of heroin for sale (§ 11351) in case number 21CR00692 and one
count of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm
(§ 11370.1, subd. (a)) in case number 21CR01499. In exchange, the
remaining charges as well as another pending case were dismissed. The trial
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and
Safety Code.
1
court sentenced defendant to a term of three years for the section 11370.1,
subdivision (a) count, plus a concurrent two-year term for the section 11351
count. In each case, the court imposed the $300 minimum restitution fine
(Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and imposed but stayed an equivalent parole
revocation restitution fine (id., § 1202.45).
The parties had stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcripts as
the factual basis for the pleas. In short, the evidence at the preliminary
hearing in case number 21CR00692 showed that police officers executing a
search warrant of defendant’s motel room found a large quantity of heroin,
psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana, multiple digital scales, and a substance
used as a “cutting agent” for methamphetamine. The police also searched a
vehicle associated with defendant and found more psilocybin mushrooms.
Based on various factors, such as the large quantity of substances found and
the presence of scales and a cutting agent, the officer who testified at the
preliminary hearing opined the drugs were possessed for sale.
Similarly, the evidence at the preliminary hearing in case number
21CR01499 showed that on a different occasion police searched defendant’s
motel room and found a loaded firearm, a large bag of fentanyl, two smaller
bags of cocaine, and two digital scales. Though defendant denied knowledge
of the firearm and large bag with fentanyl, he admitted that all of the items
in the motel room belonged to him, including the two smaller bags containing
cocaine. He also told the police that prior to their arrival, he was seated on
the bed where the police subsequently found the large bag and firearm.
Based on the weight of the drugs, the presence of scales, and packaging of the
cocaine, the officer who testified at the preliminary hearing opined the drugs
were possessed for sale.
2
Defendant filed a notice of appeal in both cases, checking boxes on the
Judicial Council form indicating: the appeal was based on “the sentence or
other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the
plea”; the appeal “challenges the validity of the plea or admission”; and there
were “other” bases for the appeal. Defendant requested a certificate of
probable cause. In full, defendant set forth the following when asked for the
“reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds” pertaining to the
legality of his pleas: “1. Misrepresentations inducing the defendant to plead
guilty. [¶] 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶] 3. Duress[.]” The trial
court denied the requested certificate.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and
seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The brief includes counsel’s declaration
stating that she informed defendant of her intent to file a Wende brief on his
behalf, she would provide a copy of the brief to defendant, and she apprised
defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. More than
two months have now elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental
brief. Mindful that in the absence of a certificate of probable cause our
review is limited to matters that do not affect the plea’s validity (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.304(b)(1)–(3)), we have found no reasonably arguable appellate
issue. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
3
_________________________
Fujisaki, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Tucher, P.J.
_________________________
Petrou, J.
People v. Johnson (A166601)
4