People v. Johnson CA3

introduction of testimony of a DNA expert who did not conduct the DNA testing, (2) the court failed to satisfy its duty of inquiry during a purported Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), (3) the prior sex offense conviction enhancement must be stricken because it is not applicable, and (4) the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect that the sentence is to be served concurrently with other sentences defendant was then serving.

In a prior opinion, we reversed the true finding on a Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (a)1 allegation, struck the consecutive five-year term imposed thereon, modified the judgment to impose a consecutive one-year term for a prior prison term enhancement found to be true, and affirmed the judgment as modified. (People v. Johnson (Apr. 28, 2009, C056841) [nonpub. opn.].)

Among other things, we held that defendant‟s challenge to the DNA expert testimony, as purportedly violating the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 [158 L.Ed.2d 177] (Crawford), failed for reasons stated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555…