Filed 11/30/15 P. v. Johnson CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered 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) ) an d four counts of

possessing stole n 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 an y written argument from

defendant. 2

1 U nspecified 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 b y 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 defe ndant was convicted, and the

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

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND

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 a nd

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, includin g 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 tak e 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 o f 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 defendan t were dismissed.

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

court granted a certificate of probable cause.4 D ISCUSSION

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

on appeal.

D ISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.Premo, J.

WE CONCUR:

Rushing, P.J.

Márquez, J.