P v. Johnson
Filed 5/30/13 P v. Johnson CA1/3
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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,
v.
BYRON
JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
A137588
(San Mateo
County
Super. Ct.
No. SC076394)
Byron
Johnson (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest
to being a felon in possession of a
firearm (a shotgun) (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).
pursuant to
and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his
did not file such a brief. Having
independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require
further briefing, and affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
An
information was filed August 28, 2012, charging appellant with two felony
counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (a shotgun and a rifle) with a prior
felony conviction (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The information further alleged that
appellant’s prior felony convictions rendered him presumptively ineligible for
probation (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)).
The information was based on a search that police conducted, pursuant to
a search warrant, at a residence at which appellant appeared to be living. Although appellant was not the target of the
as well as mail addressed to appellant, were found in the master bedroom of the
residence. After being advised of his
officers that the firearms belonged to him.
The officer who found the firearms opined that both weapons were loaded
and capable of shooting. Appellant had
two prior felony convictions.
At
arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to both counts and denied
the prior conviction allegations. Later,
after waiving his Boykin/Tahl rights
(Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S.
238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d
122), he pleaded no contest to one count of unlawful possession of a shotgun
(§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 1) in exchange for dismissal of
the balance of the information. Defense
counsel stipulated to the use of the preliminary
hearing transcript as the factual basis for the plea. Appellant waived his right to a presentence
report and consented to immediate sentencing.
The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on
probation for three years. As a
condition, the court imposed a two-day county jail term, with a total of two
days for time served. The court also
imposed standard terms of probation, including a ban on the possession of
dangerous weapons, and counseling, treatment and training. The court imposed a $240 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a suspended $240 probation revocation fine
(§ 1202.44), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction
assessment (Gov. Code § 70373), and a probation supervision fee not to
exceed $100 per month (§ 1203.1b).
Discussion
We
have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues that
warrant further briefing. Appellant has
not sought to withdraw his plea, and in any event, there is no clear and
convincing evidence of good cause to allow him to do so. Appellant was adequately represented by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings.
Counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. There was no sentencing error. There are no issues that require further
briefing.
Disposition
The
judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
McGuiness,
P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Siggins, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
