## Facts

- Anthony L. Johnson was tried for multiple violent sexual offenses, kidnappings, and robberies involving seven different women over several years.
- Six incidents followed a similar pattern: late-night approach near a victim’s car, forced entry into the car with the assailant in the backseat, threats to kill, short-distance driving, parking, and sexual assault in the backseat.
- In the seventh incident, the victim was assaulted early in the morning while jogging near a college campus.
- Across incidents, the assailant raped and sodomized victims (often repeatedly), compelled oral copulation, and demanded money while searching purses.
- A jury convicted Johnson and the court imposed five consecutive life terms plus an additional determinate term of 440 years.
- During trial, defense counsel requested an in camera hearing and stated he had an ethical conflict because Johnson wanted to testify but counsel would not call him; counsel did not explain further, citing privilege.
- The trial court, apparently concerned the testimony would be perjurious, refused to allow Johnson to testify.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court violated Johnson’s constitutional right to testify by barring him from testifying based on defense counsel’s asserted ethical conflict and implied perjury concerns.
2. If the right to testify was violated, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether Johnson could stand convicted of both simple kidnapping and kidnapping for robbery based on the same conduct.
4. Whether one challenged count was supported by substantial evidence.
5. Whether the abstract of judgment required correction to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence.

## Decision

- The court held the trial court erred by denying Johnson his constitutional right to testify.
- The court found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court reversed the simple kidnapping convictions on counts 9, 14, 40, 48, and 67 as duplicative of kidnapping for robbery based on the same conduct.
- The court otherwise affirmed the remaining convictions, including rejecting the substantial-evidence challenge.
- The court ordered the abstract of judgment corrected to match the oral pronouncement of judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant has a personal constitutional right to testify; a trial court may not deny that right solely because counsel asserts an ethical conflict or suggests anticipated perjury without preserving the defendant’s choice.
- Denial of the right to testify is constitutional error subject to Chapman harmless-error review; the conviction may stand if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When the same act supports both simple kidnapping and kidnapping for robbery, the defendant may not retain convictions for both; the proper remedy is reversal of the lesser simple-kidnapping convictions while leaving the aggravated kidnapping for robbery convictions intact.
- If the written abstract of judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls and the abstract must be corrected.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that barring Johnson from testifying was constitutional error but harmless given the strength of the evidence, reversed specified simple kidnapping counts as duplicative of kidnapping for robbery, and ordered a clerical correction of the abstract of judgment while otherwise affirming the judgment.


People v. Johnson, 62 Cal. App. 4th 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)