Filed 9/19/18 P. v. Johnson CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DERRICK LYNN JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B287452
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA438628) |
THE COURT:
Defendant and appellant, Derrick Lynn Johnson (defendant) appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment entered in 2015, after he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, §§ 290, 290.008). That conviction was affirmed by this court in People v. Johnson (B270246) an unpublished opinion filed May 2, 2017.[1] Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his motion, and his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On July 17, 2018, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
In September 2017, defendant filed his motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.6, which authorizes such a motion under enumerated circumstances, based on newly discovered evidence. The motion cited no newly discovered evidence, but alleged that the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction due to the running of the statute of limitations[2] and the violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the United States Supreme Court. Finding that defendant’s claims had been fully litigated and rejected on appeal, the trial court denied the motion on October 24, 2017.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the denial of his motion. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
____________________________________________________________
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.
