Filed 11/30/15 P. v. Johnson CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDRE TYRONE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H042434

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. C1472888)

Defendant Andre Tyrone Johnson pleaded no contest to one count of second 

degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c))1 with an allegation that he 

personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and four counts of 

possessing stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). On appeal, his counsel has filed an opening 

brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the 

record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared 

defendant was notified that an independent review under Wende was being requested. 

We advised defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 

30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have not received any written argument from 

defendant.2

 

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 On September 4, 2015, we received a letter from defendant that briefly stated 

that he would like to file a supplemental brief. However, this short letter did not contain 

legal arguments and did not raise any issues pertaining to his appeal. Defendant did not 

file any other letters containing written argument by the 30-day deadline. 
2

Pursuant to Wende, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that 

there are no arguable issues. We will provide “a brief description of the facts and 

procedural history of the case, the crimes of which defendant was convicted, and the 

punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.) 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 28, 2013, codefendant Dionte Lavone Davis was seen leaving the 

area of an armed robbery.3 Davis was on probation and was subject to a probation search 

condition. The following day, officers went to Davis’s residence and conducted a search 

of his home, which he shared with defendant. During the search, officers located four 

cell phones that were believed to be stolen. Officers also found a bicycle that matched 

the description of a bicycle used in several robberies.

The cell phones were determined to belong to several victims. Two of the victims 

said that defendant and Davis approached them on the street, brandishing handguns and 

demanding their belongings. Defendant was identified by the two victims in a 

photographic lineup. Another victim said he was robbed by two men on bicycles. The 

last victim said he was robbed by three men, including defendant. The last victim said 

that defendant held a knife to him and went through his pockets. 

At the preliminary hearing, the officers who conducted the probation search 

testified that when they searched Davis’s home, Davis’s mother pointed them to the 

garage where Davis slept and indicated which bed was his. Davis’s mother told officers 

that another man stayed in the garage. Two cell phones were found on Davis’s bed, and a 

bicycle was found in the garage. Two other cell phones were found in the living and 

kitchen area. 

 

3

Since defendant pleaded no contest, we take some of the facts from the probation 

officer’s report.
3

On July 17, 2014, an information was filed charging defendant with four counts of

robbery in the second degree (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and one count of kidnapping to 

commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)). For two of the robbery counts, it was alleged that 

defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, 

subd. (b)).

On February 13, 2015, the information was amended to include four counts of 

possession of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). And, one of the robbery counts was 

amended to allege that defendant used a deadly or dangerous weapon during the 

commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)). Defendant pleaded no contest to one 

count of robbery with the allegation that he used a deadly or dangerous weapon, and to 

the four counts of possessing stolen property with the understanding that he would be 

sentenced to eight years eight months in prison. 

On March 13, 2015, defendant was sentenced to the agreed-upon term of eight 

years eight months in prison, consisting of the upper term of five years for the robbery 

conviction, one year for the weapons enhancement, and four consecutive eight 

month-sentences for each conviction for possessing stolen property. Defendant 

was awarded 425 actual days of credit and 63 days of conduct credit. He was ordered to 

pay a $280 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and an additional $280 parole revocation fine

(§ 1202.45) was imposed but suspended. He was also ordered to pay $600 in victim 

restitution to one of the victims, $200 in court operation fees (§ 1465.8), $150 in court 

facility fees (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $259.50 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550). 

The remaining charges against defendant were dismissed. 

Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of the plea, and the 

court granted a certificate of probable cause. 
4

DISCUSSION

We have examined the entire record and conclude that there are no arguable issues 

on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.

WE CONCUR:

Rushing, P.J.

Márquez, J.