People v. Watson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from orders
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CRN17643, SCN085414
- Trial judge
- Michael T. Smyth
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Watson's petition to reduce his 1993 drug conviction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, ruling that his 1999 first-degree murder conviction rendered him ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18“The court denied the petitions, finding Watson’s prior conviction for murder rendered him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.18.” | de novo | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires 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 counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues or explaining why none exist, and to notify the court and client.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314 — Cited by counsel to suggest Anders compliance is not required in Wende reviews, a position the court disapproved.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the statutory exclusion in Penal Code section 1170.18, which bars individuals with prior convictions for serious or violent felonies (including first-degree murder) from Proposition 47 relief. The court also properly conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende, noting that the legal issue was clear and the record sparse, rendering counsel's refusal to file an Anders brief harmless.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Watson's Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) petitions to reduce his 1993 drug possession conviction to a misdemeanor, finding his 1999 first degree murder conviction made him ineligible. On a Wende appeal with no Anders issues identified by counsel and a supplemental brief from Watson, 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 petitions under section 1170.18 on the ground that Watson's first degree murder conviction renders him ineligible for resentencing/reclassification.“The court denied the petitions, finding Watson’s prior conviction for murder rendered him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.18.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Section 1170.18, subdivision (i) excludes any person with one or more prior convictions for offenses listed in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv), which includes any homicide offense defined in sections 187 to 191.5; a first degree murder conviction under section 187 plainly qualifies. The opinion treats eligibility as a pure question of law (fn. 2), which is correct. The one potentially arguable point—that the murder conviction (1999) postdates the drug offense (1993)—is not discussed, but published authority has held the disqualifying conviction need only precede the petition, so the result holds. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel who finds no arguable issues may file a brief requesting independent review of the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel filing a no-merit brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314 — Cited by counsel for the view that Anders-style issue identification is not mandatory in a Wende brief; the court disapproved counsel's reliance but found it did not impair review.
- missed: People v. Zamarripa (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1179 — A disqualifying 'prior conviction' under section 1170.18, subdivision (i) need only precede the Proposition 47 petition, not the offense sought to be reduced; this would have directly answered the only arguable issue (the murder conviction postdating the drug offense).
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is correct because a section 187 murder conviction is a disqualifying offense under section 1170.18, subdivision (i), and eligibility is a question of law reviewed independently. The opinion, however, never cites the operative subdivision or addresses the apparent timing issue that the disqualifying conviction arose after the drug offense, an issue resolved by published authority the court could have cited.
Opinion
Filed 10/15/21 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, D079021
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. CRN17643, SCN085414) ANTHONY MARIO WATSON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1993, Anthony Mario Watson pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in case No. CRN17643. In 1999, a jury convicted Watson of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) in case No. SCN085414. In 2020, Watson filed petitions to reduce the drug conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18). The court denied the petitions, finding Watson’s prior conviction for murder rendered him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.18. 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.2 Watson has responded with a supplemental brief. We will discuss his submission below. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks us to review the record for error. Counsel, however, refuses to help the court in its review by complying with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Relying on a remark in our opinion in People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314, counsel appears to take the position he does not have to comply with Andres in a Wende review for possible error. Counsel is aware the court prefers counsel to comply with Anders to assist the court and to ensure counsel is providing competent representation to an indigent 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2 The facts of the drug offense or the murder offense are not relevant to our review for error. Whether Watson was eligible for Proposition 47 relief is an issue of law. 2 defendant. Counsel asserts compliance with Anders might reveal his “impressions.” Although we disapprove of counsel’s position, in the present appeal the record is sparse and the application of section 1170.18 is clear. Counsel’s refusal to assist the court does not interfere with our ability to independently assess the question of whether there are arguable issues for reversal on appeal. In his supplemental brief Watson poses a number of questions all of which are designed to support his contention he was eligible for section 1170.18 relief. Watson does not address the problem at issue here. By reason of his 1999 conviction for first degree murder he cannot take the benefit of the Proposition 47 to obtain reclassification of his prior drug conviction. Watson’s supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record and find there are no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel’s refusal to comply with Anders has not deprived Watson of adequate legal representation.
3 DISPOSITION The orders denying Watson’s petitions for resentencing under section 1170.18 are affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12