Court Opinion

ID: 9950745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 18:03:19.916165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:37.371728
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/14/24 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Sutter)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C098578

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                (Super. Ct. No. CRF120002056)

           v.

 ARTIES JOHNSON III,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Arties Johnson III appeals from a postconviction order striking from his
sentence the one-year enhancements imposed for the prior prison terms he served,
pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75 (formerly § 1171.1). Appointed counsel has
filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
appeal. Although not required to independently review the record in these circumstances
(see, e.g., People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226), we have done so because
defendant was not notified that his failure to file a supplemental brief may result in
dismissal of the appeal. (Id. at p. 233.) However, our discretionary review of the record
reveals no arguable errors favorable to defendant. We affirm.
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In 2012, defendant struck the victim in the face multiple times with a closed fist,
fracturing her eye socket. In 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of domestic violence
with a prior domestic violence conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and found true that he
personally inflicted great bodily injury in a domestic violence incident (§ 12022.7,
subd. (e)). Defendant admitted a prior domestic violence conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1)
[formerly subd. (e)(1)]), a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subd. (e)(1)), and a prior serious
felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and further admitted that he had served five prior
prison terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an
aggregate term of 23 years. In an unpublished decision, this court affirmed the judgment.
(People v. Johnson (Sept. 28, 2015, C075995).)
       Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats.
2019, ch. 590, § 1) amended section 667.5 “by limiting the prior prison term
enhancement to only prior terms for sexually violent offenses.” (People v. Burgess
(2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 380.)
       Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) made the
change fully retroactive (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 1) and added former section 1171.1, now
section 1172.75, to the Penal Code. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12.)
This provision states that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to
January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of [s]ection 667.5, except for any
enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally
invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) “The statute further establishes a mechanism to provide

                                              2
affected defendants a remedy for those legally invalid enhancements . . . [,] direct[ing]
the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation . . . to
‘identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that
includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) and . . . provide the name of each
person, along with the person’s date of birth and the relevant case number or docket
number, to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.’ (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).)”
(People v. Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 380.) The statute then directs the trial
court to review the judgment, verify that it includes such an enhancement, “and if so,
‘recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.’ (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)” (Burgess, at
p. 380.)
       In December 2022, the trial court found that defendant’s judgment included one-
year prior prison term enhancements, appointed counsel for defendant, and placed the
matter on calendar for resentencing. Defendant’s counsel submitted a sentencing brief
asking the trial court, in addition to striking all the one-year prison priors, to impose the
middle term for defendant’s conviction for domestic violence with a prior conviction
(§ 273.5, subd. (a)), keep the middle term sentence for the great bodily injury
enhancement unchanged (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and strike the five-year prior serious
felony conviction enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). The People’s brief argued there were
no changes in circumstances that would warrant any reduction in defendant’s sentence
beyond striking the prison priors.
       At the sentencing hearing, the trial court recalled defendant’s sentence and
reimposed the initial sentence without the invalid one-year prison prior enhancements for
an aggregate sentence of 19 years. The trial court acknowledged that it had discretion to
strike the great bodily injury and prior serious felony enhancements, as well as the prison
prior enhancements. The court found that it was contrary to the interests of justice to
reduce defendant’s sentence beyond striking the prison priors given defendant’s long
history of domestic violence with different individuals, concluding this “is important for

                                               3
the protection of society that he be removed from society because he keeps committing
the same offenses over and over again.” (Capitalization omitted.)
                                       DISCUSSION
        We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record. (People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) After that review, we now conclude defendant
received the relief to which he was entitled under section 1172.75. We have found no
arguable errors favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
        The judgment is affirmed.

                                                   /s/
                                                  Wiseman, J.*

We concur:

 /s/
Earl, P. J.

 /s/
Krause, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              4