People v. Tindle CA1/4

Filed 3/25/26 P. v. Tindle CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171774 v. WILLIAM JOSEPH TINDLE, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR2103985) Defendant and Appellant.

William Joseph Tindle appeals after a jury convicted him of one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine, with a special allegation that he was personally armed with a firearm, and one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine with a firearm. (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378, former § 11370.1, subd. (a); Pen. Code, former § 12022, subd. (c).)1 The trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail and two years on probation. Tindle contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury on an

1 Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subdivision (a)

and Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (c) were amended by Proposition 36, an initiative measure adopted by the California voters in the November 5, 2024, General Election. We cite to the version of the statute in effect when Tindle committed his offenses.

1

aiding and abetting theory because there was not substantial evidence that a second party committed a predicate offense to which he contributed. He also argues that the electronics search condition of his probation is unconstitutionally overbroad and that his counsel gave him ineffective assistance by failing to object below that the condition is unreasonable. We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the aiding and abetting instruction, Tindle’s constitutional challenge is as-applied not facial, and he forfeited it by failing to object below. We further conclude the record in this direct appeal does not show he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We will affirm. BACKGROUND In late 2021, a Eureka police officer, Dustin Nantz, began investigating Alejandro Luna for drug trafficking. Using GPS trackers, Nantz identified three vehicles that Luna drove. One of those vehicles, a Ford pickup, was frequently located at the home of Tindle’s mother, Rita S., where Nantz knew Tindle stayed. Confidential informants told Nantz that Luna was storing large amounts of drugs at Tindle’s home. Nantz also identified another associate of Luna named William Egan. In December 2021, Nantz noticed that one of Luna’s vehicles was on its way back to Humboldt County from Modesto, a known source location for drug trafficking. Nantz and other law enforcement officers stopped the vehicle. Luna was not in the vehicle, but it contained four pounds of methamphetamine. Nantz searched Luna’s residence and found a small digital scale