California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
IRA JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
B192423
(Los AngelesCounty
Super. Ct. No. BA293838)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael A. Tynan, Judith L. Champagne, and Sam Ohta, Judges. Affirmed with modification.
Cheryl Barnes Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan, and Yun K. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Ira Johnson, appeals following his guilty plea to selling cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an â€
Description
Defendant, appeals following his guilty plea to selling cocaine base. (Health and Saf. Code, S 11352, subd. (a).) Court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no issues were raised. On November 7, 2006, court advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. In response, defendant, who represented himself at trial, filed a letter brief in which he argues the trial court improperly denied the following motions: to set aside the information (Pen. Code,S 995); to compel discovery; and to dismiss (S 997.) Defendant also argues: the section 995 motion was actually a section 1538.5 motion; his section 1538.5 motion was timely filed; the probable cause determination was untimely; his parole hold was improperly used as a reason to deny his right to be arraigned within 48 hours (SS 849, subd. (a), 872, subd. (a)); the trial court improperly refused to hear his dismissal motion and demurrer to the complaint on May 24, 2006; and, he made his own section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence while in the presence of his appointed counsel. The Attorney General argues that defendant was awarded excessive presentence credits. Court affirm with modification.
