Filed 8/24/26 P. v. Johnson CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, B351257
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA510766)
v.
D’ANDRE JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Gustavo N. Sztraicher, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
On July 2, 2025, the People filed an information charging
defendant D’Andre Johnson with first degree residential
burglary. (Pen. Code,2 § 459.) The information further alleged
that Johnson had suffered a prior strike under the Three Strikes
Law, namely a 2020 conviction for burglary (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(j),
1170.12), and the existence of various factors in aggravation (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 4.421).
On October 14, 2025, Johnson and the People reached a
plea agreement that avoided Johnson receiving a second strike
sentence. Pursuant to that agreement, which Johnson affirmed
he understood and was entering freely and voluntarily, Johnson
pleaded no contest to the burglary charge and admitted that he
had served a prior term in prison or county jail under section
1170, subdivision (h). (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3).)
In return, the court sentenced Johnson to an upper term of six
years in prison and ordered that term to run concurrently with
any other sentence Johnson was currently serving, including a
sentence in a San Diego case numbered SCD302863. The court
also granted Johnson a total of 265 days custody credit and
imposed various fines and assessments.
Johnson now appeals. He sought no certificate of probable
cause (see § 1237.5), and we accordingly limited his appeal to
issues that do not require such a certificate. The attorney
appointed to represent him on appeal filed a brief pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 raising no issues. When an
1 See California Standards of Judicial Administration
section 8.1.
2 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
attorney files such a brief, we must allow the defendant an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief (id. at p. 439) and must
“conduct a review of the entire record” (id. at p. 441). We notified
Johnson of his right to file a supplemental brief, but we received
no response.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that
no arguable issues exist, and that Johnson’s attorney has
complied with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
WEINGART, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
M. KIM, J.
3