Filed 5/9/18 P. v. Johnson CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL R. JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.
D073259



(Super. Ct. No. SCN365008)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Paul R. Johnson was charged in this case with one count of felony reckless evasion of a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). It was also alleged that Johnson had suffered a serious/violent felony prior conviction (strike) (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
Prior to the preliminary hearing, Johnson was found not competent to stand trial (§ 1368) and he was committed to a state hospital. About three months later he was found competent and criminal proceedings were reinstated.
The case was scheduled for jury trial, however, after the voir dire process had been completed, Johnson failed to appear and a mistrial was declared.
Ultimately Johnson returned to court and entered into a plea agreement. Under that agreement, Johnson pleaded guilty to the evasion count and admitted the strike prior. The parties stipulated to a four-year term. The remaining allegations and a separate case were dismissed as part of the agreement. Johnson waived the right to appeal the issues relating to the strike prior and the sentence. The court imposed the stipulated four-year sentence.
Johnson filed a timely notice of appeal, but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has been unable to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Johnson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Johnson has filed a supplemental brief, which we will discuss below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Johnson's plea admits that "while operating a motor vehicle, hearing a siren and seeing a red lamp from a distinctively marked vehicle, I unlawfully attempted to elude a peace officer by driving in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others."
DISCUSSION
We granted Johnson's request for judicial notice of a prior appeal in this case. (People v. Johnson (June 20, 2017, D071636) [nonpub. opn.].) In that case we addressed Johnson's appeal from the order suspending criminal proceedings and committing him to the state hospital. During the pendency of that appeal, Johnson's competence was restored and criminal proceedings were reinstated. We dismissed the appeal as moot.
In the present case counsel has filed a Wende brief asking this court to review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues for the court's consideration in reviewing the record:
1. Whether Johnson's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary;
2. Whether the $1,200 restitution fine under section 1202.4 was properly imposed; and
3. Whether Johnson's custody credits were properly calculated.
Johnson filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. The brief makes no reference to matters in the record and does not offer any argument as to issues that might justify reversal. Rather, it is a rambling listing of topics, which appear to be unrelated to this case. A partial list includes simply topics like "extortion," "proceedings under duress," "no jurisdiction," "political crimes/copyright infringement not criminal common law crimes," and "where is the consent and when did I ever take office for a political crime? I was kidnapped and taken for randsome [sic] /sold at auction."
We find nothing in the supplemental brief from which we could infer an arguable issue for reversal on appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record and have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Johnson on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:



BENKE, Acting P. J.



AARON, J.