People v. Johnson CA2/1

Opinion

Filed 8/24/26 P. v. Johnson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B351257

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA510766) v.

D’ANDRE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gustavo N. Sztraicher, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 On July 2, 2025, the People filed an information charging defendant D’Andre Johnson with first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code,2 § 459.) The information further alleged that Johnson had suffered a prior strike under the Three Strikes Law, namely a 2020 conviction for burglary (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(j), 1170.12), and the existence of various factors in aggravation (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421). On October 14, 2025, Johnson and the People reached a plea agreement that avoided Johnson receiving a second strike sentence. Pursuant to that agreement, which Johnson affirmed he understood and was entering freely and voluntarily, Johnson pleaded no contest to the burglary charge and admitted that he had served a prior term in prison or county jail under section 1170, subdivision (h). (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3).) In return, the court sentenced Johnson to an upper term of six years in prison and ordered that term to run concurrently with any other sentence Johnson was currently serving, including a sentence in a San Diego case numbered SCD302863. The court also granted Johnson a total of 265 days custody credit and imposed various fines and assessments. Johnson now appeals. He sought no certificate of probable cause (see § 1237.5), and we accordingly limited his appeal to issues that do not require such a certificate. The attorney appointed to represent him on appeal filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 raising no issues. When an 1 See California Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1. 2 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 attorney files such a brief, we must allow the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief (id. at p. 439) and must “conduct a review of the entire record” (id. at p. 441). We notified Johnson of his right to file a supplemental brief, but we received no response. We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that Johnson’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WEINGART, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

M. KIM, J.