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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or

or dered 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. A 16 6601

( Mendocino County Super. Ct.

No s

. 21CR01499 & 21CR00692 )

Defendant Edward Paul Johnson was charged in Mendocino County

case n umber 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 n umber 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 113 51

count

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

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

revocation restitution fine ( id.

, § 1202.45)

. The parties had stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript s as

the factual basis for the plea s

. In short

, t he 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 search ed 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, t he 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

. T hough 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 the ir arriv al , 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 po ssessed for sale.3

D efendant filed a notice of appeal in both cases , checking box es 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” bas e s for the appeal

. De fendan t request ed a certificate of

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

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

legality of his plea s : “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

(197 9) 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 val idity (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

T he judgment is affirmed.4 _________________________ Fujisaki, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Tucher, P.J.

_________________________ Petrou , J.

People v. Joh nson (A16 6601 )