People v. Watson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR131034
- Trial judge
- Michael T. Smyth
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court denied Watson's petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, determining that his conviction for sale of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11352 did not qualify for reduction to a misdemeanor. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after a Wende review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18“The trial court denied the petition, finding Health and Safety Code section 11352 did not qualify for reduction to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the offense of sale of cocaine base under Health and Safety Code section 11352 is not one of the offenses subject to Proposition 47 relief, and that the appellant failed to raise arguable issues on appeal. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw if none are found.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record. It accurately notes that the underlying offense (sale of cocaine base) is not eligible for Proposition 47 relief, which is a threshold legal bar to the petition.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Anthony Watson's Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47) petition to redesignate his 1992 Health and Safety Code section 11352 conviction for sale of a controlled substance as a misdemeanor, finding the offense is not eligible for relief and that Watson had a prior murder conviction. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Watson filed a supplemental brief raising equal protection, ex post facto, and First Step Act arguments, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Proposition 47 petition on the ground that Health and Safety Code section 11352 (sale of a controlled substance) is not an offense eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18“The trial court denied the petition, finding Health and Safety Code section 11352 did not qualify for reduction to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1170.18 lists specific theft and drug-possession offenses (e.g., Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, 11357, 11377) eligible for redesignation; sale of a controlled substance under section 11352 is not among them. The trial court's ruling is correct as a matter of statutory eligibility, and the appellate court correctly identified that Watson's supplemental brief did not confront this dispositive point. The opinion does not articulate a standard of review because it proceeds under Wende, but eligibility is a legal question and the result is plainly right. |
Finding that Watson had a disqualifying murder conviction in case No. CRN17643 as an alternative ground for denial“The court also found Watson had been convicted of murder in case No. CRN17643.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Counsel flagged under Anders whether the prosecutor established the murder conviction predated the drug offense; the appellate court did not analyze this question specifically, resolving the appeal on the broader Wende finding of no arguable issue. Because section 11352 is categorically ineligible, any question about the timing or proof of the disqualifying prior is immaterial to the outcome. The court's decision not to parse this issue is defensible since the first ground independently supports denial. |
Rejection of Watson's supplemental-brief contentions that denial of the petition violated equal protection, the ex post facto clause, and that the federal First Step Act of 2018 compelled relief“Watson’s submission has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, given the record before us.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Proposition 47 is a state ameliorative measure whose scope is defined by the electorate; denying relief for an offense the measure does not cover raises no ex post facto problem (no punishment is increased) and distinguishing sale from possession offenses has an obvious rational basis. The federal First Step Act governs federal sentences and has no application to a California state conviction. The court's conclusion is correct, though it states the result with minimal explanation. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit may so advise the court while identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — When a defendant files a supplemental brief in a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal must address in its opinion the contentions raised and explain why they fail; the opinion here disposed of Watson's equal protection, ex post facto, and First Step Act arguments in a single conclusory sentence without stating the reasons.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is clearly correct because Health and Safety Code section 11352 is not an offense covered by Penal Code section 1170.18, and Watson's constitutional and federal-statute arguments have no application to a state Proposition 47 petition. The opinion, however, dismisses Watson's supplemental contentions in one sentence without explaining why they fail, and it does not analyze the Anders issue counsel raised about proof of the disqualifying prior conviction, leaving minor gaps in an otherwise defensible disposition.
Opinion
Filed 5/28/21 P. v. Watson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D078635
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR131034)
ANTHONY MARIO WATSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed. Anthony Watson, in pro. per.; and Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1992, Anthony Watson pleaded guilty to sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352). He was granted probation, which was later revoked, and he was sentenced to prison. In 2020, Watson filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18). The trial court denied the petition, finding Health and Safety Code section 11352 did not qualify for reduction to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. The court also found Watson had been convicted of murder in case No. CRN17643. Watson filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Watson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Watson has filed a supplemental brief which we will discuss below.2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Was Watson entitled to have his conviction for sale of cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352 designated a misdemeanor?
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The facts of the 1992 offense are not relevant to the review of this order. We will omit a statement of facts. 2 2. Was it error for the trial court to deny the petition even though the prosecutor did not establish Watson suffered a conviction for a disqualifying offense before he was convicted for the offense at issue? In his supplemental brief, Watson argues he was entitled to redesignation of his offense as a misdemeanor. He does not discuss the fact that sale of cocaine base is not one of the offenses subject to Proposition 47 relief. Nor does Watson discuss his murder conviction. Instead, he simply contends denial of his petition denies him equal protection and violates the protection from ex post facto laws. Finally, Watson argues the First Step Act of 2018, 115 P.L. 391, 132 Stat. 5194 and 18 U.S.C. § 927 should compel granting his section 1170.18 petition. Watson’s submission has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, given the record before us. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Watson on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The order denying Watson’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12