Court Opinion

ID: 9390017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 18:03:03.499039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.085121
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. Johnson CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 2d Crim. No. B321850
                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 1411285)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Santa Barbara County)

 v.

 PHILLIP JOSEPH
 JOHNSON,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Phillip Joseph Johnson appeals the order of the trial court
denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code
section 1172.61 (former section 1170.95).2 We appointed counsel
to represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and
requesting that we independently review the record, citing People

         1   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

        Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered
         2
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266. Alternatively, counsel asks
this court to follow the procedures set forth in People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed his
own supplemental brief, in propria persona. We affirm.
                 Facts and Procedural Background3
       In an information filed in June 2013, appellant was
charged with murder after he admitted to stabbing 64-year-old
Asta E. in the neck with a knife he had taken from the kitchen,
killing her. (§ 187, subd. (a).) The information also alleged
appellant personally used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and
suffered a prior prison term for a felony conviction (§ 667.5, subd.
(b)).
       In July 2013, appellant pleaded guilty to second degree
murder and admitted the special allegations. The plea form
included a “Written Stipulation of Factual Basis,” which read,
“On May 30 2012 I entered the bedroom of [Asta E.] with malice
aforethought, and killed without lawful excuse [Asta E.] with a
knife [sic].” The plea form also indicated that the trial court
could consider the preliminary hearing transcripts and police
reports as proof of the factual basis for the plea.
       The trial court found appellant guilty and the
enhancements to be true and sentenced him to the agreed-upon
punishment of 17 years-to-life in state prison.
       In May 2022, appellant filed, in propria persona, a form
petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. After
appointment of counsel and an opportunity for the parties to
provide briefing, the trial court summarily denied the petition.

      3The following facts are taken from the preliminary
hearing transcript.

                                 2
       The trial court’s ruling stated, in pertinent part, “The
record of conviction reveals that the petitioner was prosecuted as
the actual killer. Petitioner admitted stabbing the victim, and
petitioner was the only person charged with the victim[’]s
murder. Felony murder and the natural and probable
consequences doctrine . . . played no role in petitioner’s murder
conviction. ¶ As pointed out by the People, none of the recent
amendments under [Senate Bill No.] 1437 [(2017-2018 Reg.
Sess.)] or [Senate Bill No.] 775 [(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)] apply to
petitioner.”
                              Discussion
       Because the instant appeal is from an order denying
postconviction relief rather than a first appeal as of right from a
criminal conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent
review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-
222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119
[independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to
first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th
496, 503.) However, he is entitled to appellate consideration of
any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo,
at p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.)
       In his supplemental brief, appellant raises a number of
contentions challenging his conviction after his guilty plea. For
example, he contends his sentence violates the “ex post facto”
clause because his “sentence was enhanced on the basis of a
statute that was not in existence at the time his crime was
committed.” Appellant is wrong. His sentence was enhanced
after he admitted, and the trial court found true, the special

                                 3
allegations that he used a knife to kill the victim (§ 12022, subd.
(b)(1)), and that he suffered a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd.
(b)).
       Appellant also challenges the validity of the “warrantless
home search” and contends there is reasonable doubt as to the
elements of the charged offense. For example, he contends the
investigating officer made “inconclusive statements” at the
preliminary hearing regarding the “visibility” of the knife. He
also contends there was a lack of DNA or fingerprints connecting
him to the knife. He further contends his confession was coerced
and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
       Appellant’s contentions are meritless.
       First, appellant may not enter into a negotiated disposition,
enjoy its fruits, and then challenge the factual basis for his plea.
(People v. Borland (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 124, 127.) Indeed, a
plea of guilty admits each element of the offense and is itself a
conviction; nothing more remains but to give judgment and
determine punishment. (Id. at p. 128.) Second, a petition
pursuant to section 1172.6 is not a vehicle for such a collateral
attack on a guilty plea.
       Accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded appellant’s
crimes do not qualify for the requested relief.
                              Disposition
       The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                 4
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                  YEGAN, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                              5
                   Gustavo Lavayen, Judge
           Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
               ______________________________
     Richard B. Lennon and David Andreasen, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.