Court Opinion

ID: 9940544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 18:03:10.697273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:59.123612
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/24 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C098683

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 23CF00527)

           v.

 AMANDA ANN JOHNSON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         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 that

                                                             1
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 codefendants were charged in a 42-count indictment.
Defendant was charged with three counts of child abuse (Pen. Code,1 § 273a, subd. (a);
counts 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, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 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 right to a jury trial or court trial regarding aggravating circumstances, and
instead agreed to permit 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 aggregate
term of ten years eight months, as follows: the upper term of six years for count 5, one
year four months consecutive each for counts 6 and 7 (one-third the midterm), two years
consecutive for count 12 (one-third the midterm), and one year concurrent 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 $200 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $150 criminal
conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).
       Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause on appeal.

1      Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asked 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.

                                              3