People v. Johnson CA2/5

Filed 8/28/23 P. v. Johnson CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B323339
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA077624)
v.
FREDERICK MARK JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
Frederick Mark Johnson pleaded no contest to two counts
of robbery. (Pen. Code,1 § 211; counts 1 and 3). With respect to
count 1, Johnson admitted the allegation that he personally used
a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that he suffered a prior
strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667,
subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12). He also agreed to a waiver under People
v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, which required him to make
restitution to victims in all counts that were dismissed per the
plea agreement.
Johnson filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea,
which the trial court denied on June 16, 2022. He was sentenced
to the negotiated term of 15 years in prison.
Johnson timely appealed the judgment and the denial of his
motion to withdraw the plea. On October 14, 2022, this court
issued an order limiting the issues in this case to those not
requiring a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel. After reviewing the record, counsel
filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record
independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441 (Wende). On May 17, 2023, we advised Johnson that he had
30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to
consider. Johnson requested and was granted a 30-day extension
of the deadline to submit issues or contentions. No response has
been received to date.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no
arguable issues exist and that Johnson’s counsel has fully
satisfied his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins
(2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
The trial court’s judgment and the order denying Johnson’s
motion to withdraw his plea are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
BAKER, J.
3