People v. Johnson CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/3/24 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
----
THE PEOPLE, C098665
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR0447)
v.
BRANDON ROBERT JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Robert Johnson asked this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After their one-year romantic relationship ended in October 2021, defendant broke
into his ex-girlfriend’s home and installed tracking devices on her vehicle. The ex-
girlfriend obtained a protective order in her favor in February 2022. Despite the order,
defendant continued to text and call her.
In March 2022, the ex-girlfriend and a male friend were talking in her bedroom
when defendant suddenly appeared in the doorway. After threatening to kill them both,
defendant choked the ex-girlfriend and held her down. Defendant attempted to use a Taser
1
on the male friend and then attacked him with a knife, cutting him on the forehead. While
the two struggled, the ex-girlfriend called the police. The male friend eventually subdued
defendant and forced him out of the house. Defendant retrieved a crowbar from his truck,
but the male friend grabbed it from him.
Defendant tried to flee from responding deputies, but they eventually caught and
arrested him. Responding deputies searched defendant’s truck and found, inter alia, zip
ties configured like handcuffs, handcuffs, a wig, nearly $2,000 in cash, a night vision
monocular, and a knife. Cleaning staff at the guest house where defendant was staying
found more zip ties attached to the bed and to an ottoman at the foot of the bed. The ex-
girlfriend later found multiple bottles of cleaning supplies stashed in her garage.
Defendant was charged with attempted kidnapping to commit rape (Pen. Code,1
§§ 664/209, subd. (b)(1); count 1), first degree burglary (§ 459; count 2), stalking (§ 646.9,
subd. (a); count 3), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts
4-5), two counts of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245,
subd. (a)(4); counts 6-7), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 8), resisting arrest (§ 69;
count 9), misdemeanor violation of a domestic relationship court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a);
count 10), and misdemeanor possession of burglar’s tools (§ 466; count 11). As to count
7, it was alleged that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1).) Multiple aggravating factors were alleged. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
4.421(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6), (a)(8), (a)(11)  (b)(1).)
In January 2023, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 4 and admitted the
aggravating circumstances. The parties agreed defendant would be sentenced to prison for
an aggregate term of 10 years, as follows: the upper term of nine years for count 1 and one
year consecutive (one-third the midterm) for count 4. The trial court imposed the agreed-
upon sentence in March 2023. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4,
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
subd. (b)), a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is
revoked) (§ 1202.45), an $80 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $60
criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause on
appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing 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.
/s/
Wiseman, J.*
We concur:
/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.
/s/
Renner, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3