P. v. Johnson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 7/29/13  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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   MICHAEL NEAL JOHNSON,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C073040   (Super. Ct. No. 12F01255)

 

 

 

            Appointed
counsel for defendant Michael Neal Johnson has asked this court to review the
record to determine whether there exist any href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable issues on appeal.  (People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)  We
shall affirm the judgment.

>BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2012, defendant Michael Neal Johnson entered a
River City Bank, walked up to the teller, and demanded all the cash in the
teller’s reserve drawer.  The teller
complied and defendant took the cash and fled the bank.

            Defendant
pleaded guilty to second degree robbery
(Pen. Code,href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">^[1]
§ 211) and admitted three strike allegations (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i),
1170.12).  The trial court sentenced
defendant to a stipulated term of 25 years to life, imposed various fines and
fees, and awarded 388 days of presentence credit, consisting of 338 days of
actual and

50 days of conduct credit. 
(§ 2933.1.)

            Defendant
appeals.  The trial court denied his
request for a certificate of probable
cause.

            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.  (Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)  Counsel
advised defendant 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.

 

 

                                                                                               DUARTE                           , J.

 

We concur:

 

 

 

                  MURRAY                         , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

                  HOCH                                , J.