Filed 12/16/14 P. v. Johnson CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARTHUR LEE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B257322

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA033342)

THE COURT:*

Defendant and appellant Arthur Lee Johnson (defendant) appeals the denial of his 

postjudgment motion for additional custody credits. His appointed counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On 

September 29, 2014, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to 

file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish 

to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. 

We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

In 1999, after defendant appealed from a judgment under which he was sentenced 

to three consecutive prison terms of 25 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law, this 

court remanded the matter to the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to vacate 

 

* BOREN, P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.
2

one or more of defendant’s prior strike convictions. In 2000, the trial court declined to 

vacate prior strikes and ordered that the previous sentence remain in full force and effect. 

In 2001, this court affirmed the judgment and rejected defendant’s request to order the 

trial court to recalculate defendant’s custody credits to include the time he spent in prison 

and jail awaiting resentencing, as defendant had not made his request to the trial court in 

the first instance.

In 2014, defendant brought a pro. per. motion in superior court requesting 

recalculation of his presentence custody credits to include the 25 actual days he spent in 

the custody of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department awaiting resentencing. His 

supporting exhibit showed that in 1998, defendant was delivered into the custody of the 

Department of Corrections, transported to superior court for resentencing on March 29, 

2000, and returned to prison on April 24, 2000. Defendant claimed that he was entitled 

to additional credits under Penal Code section 2900.1 and the reasoning of People v. 

Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20. The superior court denied the motion on June 6, 2014, 

and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The superior court did not err. As

defendant remained in the actual or constructive custody of the Department of 

Corrections at all times, and failed to demonstrate that his sentence had been declared 

invalid or modified, it is the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, not the 

superior court, that is responsible for calculating credit for the period in question. (Id. at 

pp. 23, 27-30; see Pen. Code, § 2930 et seq.)

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate 

counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We 

conclude that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure 

and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the 

judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; 

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

The order of the superior court is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.