Filed 6/23/16 P. v. Johnson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EMARI LITRELL JOHNSON,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G052987

 (Super. Ct. No. 15CF1469)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Gassia Apkarian and Kathleen Roberts, Judges. Affirmed.

Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
2

Defendant Emari Litrell Johnson pled guilty to attempted human trafficking 

and attempted pimping, and was sentenced to three years two months in state prison. 

Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea, but his appointed trial counsel refused to 

file a motion on the ground there was no legal basis for doing so. A hearing was 

conducted pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), and 

defendant’s request for new appointed trial counsel was denied. 

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel 

filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. 

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting forth the facts of the case, raising no 

issues, and requesting that we independently review the entire record. We provided 

defendant 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf; that time has passed and no 

supplemental brief has been filed.

We have examined the entire record and appointed appellate counsel’s 

Wende/Anders brief; we find no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436.) We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with human trafficking 

(Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (b)), pimping (id., § 266h, subd. (a)), pandering by procuring 

(id., § 266i, subd. (a)(1)), attempted human trafficking (id., §§ 664, subd. (a), 236.1, 

subd. (a)), and attempted pimping (id., §§ 664, subd. (a), 266h, subd. (a)). In November 

2015, defendant agreed to plead guilty to the charges of attempted human trafficking and 

attempted pimping; the remaining charges were dismissed. Defendant made the 

following factual statement as the basis for his guilty plea: “In Orange County, 

California, on or about and between 5/1/15 - 7/1/15 I willfully, unlawfully and 

intentionally attempted to deprive the personal liberty of Jane Doe with intent to obtain 
3

forced labor services and I attempted to derive monetary support from Jane Doe’s acts of 

prostitution, knowing she was a prostitute.” 

The trial court sentenced defendant to three years two months in state 

prison, with credit for 284 days’ time served.

In December 2015, defendant and his appointed trial counsel appeared in 

court. Defense counsel informed the court that defendant wanted to withdraw his guilty 

plea. Defense counsel further informed the court that he did not believe there was a legal 

basis for withdrawing the plea, and asked the court to hold a Marsden hearing. The court 

conducted the hearing and allowed defendant to explain the grievances he had with 

appointed defense counsel. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a new attorney.

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court issued a 

certificate of probable cause.

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ISSUES

Appellate counsel suggests three potential issues for our review. First, we 

consider whether defendant’s guilty plea was constitutionally valid. Our review of the 

record shows that defendant entered his guilty plea, and waived his constitutional rights, 

voluntarily and intelligently. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242-243; In re 

Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 131-133.)

Second, we consider whether the trial court erred by conducting a Marsden

hearing before appointing new counsel to represent defendant in his request to withdraw 

his guilty plea. In People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696, the California Supreme 

Court held that new counsel should be appointed only after the court finds “the defendant 

has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would substantially impair the 

right to assistance of counsel [citation], or, stated slightly differently, if the record shows 

that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation or that the 

defendant and the attorney have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that 
4

ineffective representation is likely to result [citation].” That holding was recently 

reaffirmed in People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80.

Third and finally, we consider whether the trial court erred in failing to 

grant defendant’s request for a new attorney. Defendant was given a full and fair 

opportunity to identify any instances of inadequate representation or misconduct by his 

appointed trial counsel. The court conducted a hearing pursuant to Marsden, and gave 

defendant a chance to explain to the court why he believed defense counsel had not 

performed adequately. The trial court also heard from defense counsel, who responded to 

defendant’s statements. Whether to grant a request for new appointed counsel is a matter 

left to the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 696.) 

Finding no abuse of that discretion, we affirm the trial court’s decision that defendant 

failed to make the required showing. 

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and 

Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues suggested by defendant’s 

appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent 

counsel has represented defendant in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment orders are affirmed.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

IKOLA, J.