1

Filed 2/14/2 4 P. v. Johnson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
AMANDA ANN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant. C098683
(Super. Ct. No. 23CF00527)

Appointed counsel for defendant Amanda Ann Johnson asked this court to review

the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 .) We will affirm

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant and her two codefendants (one female and one male) were in a polyamorous relationship . They all lived together, along with defendant’s two minor

children and her female codefendant’s three minor children

. One of the children

disclosed that she and her siblings had been sexually abused in their home by the male

codefendant

. He also physically abused some of the children. Defendant suspected that2

there was inappropriate activity between her male codefendant and the children

. After
her male codefendant was arrested, defendant told her children to “just be quiet.” When interviewed by a police investigator, defendant denied there had been any abuse

. Defendant and her two c odefendants were charged in a 4 2

- count indictment

. D efendant was charged with three counts of child abuse (Pen. Code, 1 § 273a, subd. (a) ;

count s 5, 6, and 7 )
, one count of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 12), and one count of misdemeanor child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (b); count 40).

In April 2023, d efendant pleaded no contest to count s 5, 6, 7, 12, and 40 in exchange for the dismissal of two misdemeanor counts in other cases not at issue here.

She waived her ri ght to a jury trial or court trial regarding aggravating circumstances , and instead agreed to p ermit the trial court to find aggravating circumstances based on the police reports. In May 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an ag gregate
term of ten years eight months, as follows: the upper term of six years for count 5, one year four months consecutive each for count s 6 and 7 (one

- third the midterm), two years consecutive for count 12 (one

- third the midterm) , and one year concurr ent for count 40

with credit for time served

. The trial court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked)
(§ 1202.45)
, a $ 2 0 0 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $ 15 0 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).

D efendant did not obtain a certificate of probable ca use on appeal.

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.3 DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and

ask ed this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 436. ) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication

from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

\ s \ Krause, J.

We concur:

\ s \ Robie, Acting P. J.

\ s \ Duarte, J.