People v. Johnson CA3

Filed 3/17/23 P. v. Johnson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ---- THE PEOPLE, C097023 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 04F04374) v. ARTHUR EUGENE JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. After Clifton W. broke up a fight between rival gang members, defendant Arthur Eugene Johnson,1 a gang member, handed an assault rifle to an accomplice to shoot Clifton. Defendant called out Clifton’s name repeatedly and displayed a revolver as Clifton tried to escape. Defendant’s accomplice shot Clifton three times. 1 While the notice of appeal filed in this case lists defendant’s name as “Arthur Johnson,” the original abstract of judgment uses “Arthur Eugene Johnson.” We use the latter name in this opinion. 1 A jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury found true allegations that defendant personally used a firearm and committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang, as well as that the principal to the attempted murder personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The jury found not true allegations that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. After defendant admitted two prior strikes, on June 10, 2005, the trial court sentenced defendant to 59 years to life. We affirmed the judgment in People v. Johnson (Aug. 21, 2006, C050061) [nonpub. opn.]. In June 2022, defendant filed a petition to vacate the gang and gang-related firearm enhancements under Assembly Bill No. 2542 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 3.5), which enacted Penal Code2 section 745 (California Racial Justice Act of 2020), as well as under Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 699, §§ 3, 4), which increased the proof requirements for criminal street gang enhancements imposed under section 186.22. Defendant contended the district attorney exhibited racial bias in charging defendant under the gang enhancement statutes, arguing that statistical data showed these statutes were ineffective in preventing crime and resulted in racial disparity in prisoners serving gang enhancement sentences. Defendant also argued that the evidence was insufficient to impose gang enhancements under the amendments made by Assembly Bill No. 333. In August 2022, the trial court denied the petition, ruling that (1) section 745 was inapplicable based on former subdivision (j) of the statute, which provided, “ ‘This section applies only prospectively in cases in which judgment has not been entered prior 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 to January 1, 2021’ ” (see Stats. 2022, ch. 739, § 2); and (2) Assembly Bill No. 333 did …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals