1

Filed 6/26/23 P. v. Johnson CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDWARD PAUL JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A166601

 (Mendocino County Super. Ct. 

 Nos. 21CR01499 & 21CR00692)

Defendant Edward Paul Johnson was charged in Mendocino County 

case number 21CR00692 with several drug charges. (Health & Saf. Code, 

§§ 11351, 11359, subd. (b), 11391.1) He was also charged in Mendocino 

County case number 21CR01499 with possession of a controlled substance 

while armed with a loaded firearm (§ 11370.1, subd. (a)), possession of 

cocaine and fentanyl for sale (§ 11351), and possession of a firearm by a felon 

(Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). He pled no contest to one count of 

possession of heroin for sale (§ 11351) in case number 21CR00692 and one 

count of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm 

(§ 11370.1, subd. (a)) in case number 21CR01499. In exchange, the 

remaining charges as well as another pending case were dismissed. The trial 

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and 

Safety Code.
2

court sentenced defendant to a term of three years for the section 11370.1, 

subdivision (a) count, plus a concurrent two-year term for the section 11351 

count. In each case, the court imposed the $300 minimum restitution fine

(Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and imposed but stayed an equivalent parole 

revocation restitution fine (id., § 1202.45).

The parties had stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcripts as 

the factual basis for the pleas. In short, the evidence at the preliminary 

hearing in case number 21CR00692 showed that police officers executing a 

search warrant of defendant’s motel room found a large quantity of heroin, 

psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana, multiple digital scales, and a substance 

used as a “cutting agent” for methamphetamine. The police also searched a 

vehicle associated with defendant and found more psilocybin mushrooms. 

Based on various factors, such as the large quantity of substances found and 

the presence of scales and a cutting agent, the officer who testified at the 

preliminary hearing opined the drugs were possessed for sale. 

Similarly, the evidence at the preliminary hearing in case number

21CR01499 showed that on a different occasion police searched defendant’s

motel room and found a loaded firearm, a large bag of fentanyl, two smaller 

bags of cocaine, and two digital scales. Though defendant denied knowledge 

of the firearm and large bag with fentanyl, he admitted that all of the items 

in the motel room belonged to him, including the two smaller bags containing

cocaine. He also told the police that prior to their arrival, he was seated on

the bed where the police subsequently found the large bag and firearm. 

Based on the weight of the drugs, the presence of scales, and packaging of the 

cocaine, the officer who testified at the preliminary hearing opined the drugs 

were possessed for sale. 
3

Defendant filed a notice of appeal in both cases, checking boxes on the 

Judicial Council form indicating: the appeal was based on “the sentence or 

other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the 

plea”; the appeal “challenges the validity of the plea or admission”; and there 

were “other” bases for the appeal. Defendant requested a certificate of 

probable cause. In full, defendant set forth the following when asked for the 

“reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds” pertaining to the 

legality of his pleas: “1. Misrepresentations inducing the defendant to plead 

guilty. [¶] 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶] 3. Duress[.]” The trial 

court denied the requested certificate. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and 

seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The brief includes counsel’s declaration 

stating that she informed defendant of her intent to file a Wende brief on his 

behalf, she would provide a copy of the brief to defendant, and she apprised 

defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. More than 

two months have now elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental 

brief. Mindful that in the absence of a certificate of probable cause our 

review is limited to matters that do not affect the plea’s validity (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.304(b)(1)–(3)), we have found no reasonably arguable appellate 

issue. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
4

_________________________

Fujisaki, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Tucher, P.J.

_________________________

Petrou, J.

People v. Johnson (A166601)