California Court of Appeal Apr 17, 2014 No. E059628Unpublished
Filed 4/17/14 P. v. Watson CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E059628
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1300918)
AARON BRANDON WATSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Jon D. Ferguson,
Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Aaron Brandon Watson appeals after he pleaded no
contest to one felony count of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine),
and one count of maintaining a place for using drugs. Defendant had elected to plead no
1
contest to these counts, with an agreement to dismiss the remaining counts (felony
possession of marijuana for sale and misdemeanor possession of a drug smoking pipe),
after his motion to suppress evidence was denied. We affirm the judgment.
The case arose out of an incident in which a hotel manager called police for
assistance in removing a guest (defendant) who refused to leave. Defendant had paid for
one night’s stay at the hotel. Check-out time was 12:00 noon. Defendant came to the
hotel manager’s attention because other hotel guests, as well as hotel cleaning staff,
complained of a very strong odor of marijuana coming from defendant’s room. The
manager told defendant that he was not allowed to smoke in the room, and that smoking
marijuana was illegal. The manager informed defendant that he would have to leave by
check-out time. Defendant made excuses and asked for extensions of time, saying he had
nowhere to go or that he was waiting for someone to come pick him up, but in essence he
refused to leave.
By 1:00 p.m., after defendant had been called several times and still refused to
leave, the hotel manager decided to call police. The officers responded, and proceeded to
defendant’s room. The officers knocked on the door and announced themselves.
Defendant initially opened the door, saw the officers, and then tried to shut the door
again. One of the officers blocked the door with his foot. The officer asked defendant
whether defendant “had anything illegal on him.” Defendant denied having anything
2
illegal. The officer persisted, asking if he could check whether defendant possessed
anything illegal. Defendant responded by turning around and raising his hands.
The officers then entered the room and began by searching defendant. The
personal search turned up a drug smoking pipe in one pocket, and a baggie with
methamphetamine residue in another. Defendant was then handcuffed and seated on a
chair in the room. The search expanded to other items in the hotel room. Defendant’s
backpack, found on the bed, contained a plastic jar, a glass bottle, and a large plastic
baggie, all containing marijuana. The backpack also contained several empty plastic
baggies, and a white envelope with $900 cash. Defendant’s cell phone was on the
bedside table. Defendant gave the password on request, and officers found several text
messages offering to sell “herb,” i.e., marijuana.
Defendant was charged with one felony count of possession of marijuana for sale,
one felony count of possession of methamphetamine, and a misdemeanor count of
possession of a drug smoking pipe.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code
section 1538.5. Defendant argued that he had been searched without a warrant, and that
it was therefore the People’s burden to justify the search and the seizure of the evidence.
The trial court denied the motion.
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant negotiated
a very favorable plea bargain. Defendant would not have to plead to the charge of
possession of marijuana for sale, but only to the charge of possession of
3
methamphetamine. The sale of marijuana and the possession of a drug pipe charges
would be dismissed. A fourth count—maintaining a place for the use of drugs in
violation of Health and Safety Code section 11366—was added, with the purpose of
ensuring that any sentence on the admitted charges would have to be served in state
prison rather than in local custody. Defendant would admit that charge. However,
defendant would not have to serve any time in prison. Defendant would be released from
custody on a Vargas waiver (People v. Vargas (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1107) and, on his
return, his state prison sentence of five years eight months would be vacated and he
would be admitted to probation. In addition, defendant’s cell phone (minus its memory
card), the $900 cash, his laptop computer, a pair of headphones, and a Swiss Army knife
would all be returned to him.
After a great deal of back-and-forth discussion, defendant eventually agreed to the
plea bargain on these terms. He also admitted two prison term prior convictions.
Defendant did violate the terms of his Vargas release, but the result was only a minor
change in the outcome: rather than having the state prison sentence vacated and
defendant sentenced to probation, the state prison sentence was suspended, and defendant
was placed on probation, subject to the suspended prison sentence.
4
On September 6, 2013, defendant filed a notice of appeal, asserting grounds
related to sentencing or other matters occurring after the plea, which did not affect the
validity of the plea, and to denial of his motion to suppress evidence.1
ANALYSIS
I. Appellate Counsel’s Brief
On defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting
forth a statement of the case, but raising no specific issues. Counsel has requested this
court to undertake a review of the entire record.
II. Defendant’s Personal Supplemental Brief
Defendant was informed of his right to file a personal supplemental brief, raising
any issues he felt should be brought to the attention of the court. Defendant has filed a
personal supplemental brief, in which he advances numerous claims of impropriety.
As clearly as we can understand defendant’s claims, he argues:
1) His conviction resulted from a conspiracy, consisting of vindictive prosecution
and “outrageous government conduct.”
2) The case was infected with police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct,
misconduct of defense counsel, and judicial misconduct, “including a collusion that
1 Among other rights defendant waived pursuant to the Vargas waiver was the right to appeal, including the right to appeal on the motion to suppress evidence.
5
resulted in the appellant’s deprivation of right[]s” under the Civil Rights Act (Title 42
U.S.C.A., § 1983) and under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution.
3) The plea was not valid because “it was a fraudulently induced plea taken under
duress with no factual basis.”
4) The prior prison term enhancements should be “void, due to one
conviction . . . being made with fraud on the court . . . and the other enhancement prior
being more than five years old.” With respect to his admissions of the prison term priors,
defendant contends “the court reporter[’]s transcripts are erred, with fraud on the
inducement of the plea bargain with willful misconduct by the court, officers, and it[]s
agents and misleading the appellant,” such that there was “fraud upon the court and there
to having an illegal sentence from the coerced plea taken [sic].”
5) Defendant urged a Brady violation (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87
[83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215]), on the theory that evidence affecting defendant’s
sentence was not disclosed by the prosecution. He reiterates the contention that “[t]here
is fabricated evidence amounting to false evidence and concealing of exculpatory
evidence,” in that “[t]he evidence [was] gathered improperly and was tainted and
contaminated [because it was] scraped with a paper clip that [D]eputy Paredes testified to
in the preliminary hearing . . . .”
6) Defendant contends that meritorious defense motions were not filed,
amounting to a deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel (ineffective
6
assistance of counsel, or IAC). Among the motions defendant wanted filed were a
Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) [concerning
records of police misconduct]), a Murgia motion (Murgia v. Municipal Court for
sentence was not disclosed by the prosecution. Defendant does not suggest what such
evidence might be, however.
Defendant next complains that he was deprived of his constitutional right to
counsel because a number of meritorious defense motions were not made below. The
contention is without merit.
There was no reason for defense counsel to file a motion to reconsider as to the
suppression ruling, because the motion to suppress was properly denied. Defendant
wanted defense counsel to file a Pitchess motion.2 Defendant suggests no good cause to
support any potential Pitchess motion.
Similarly, although defendant wanted to file a Murgia motion, concerning
selective enforcement, defendant suggests nothing that could have been proffered in
support of a claim of discriminatory prosecution.
As noted, defendant concludes his scattershot assertions of error with a catch-all
series of claims that, “There are errors of law and errors of fact in this case that [led] to
2 Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531.
13
violations to the appellant’s 5th Amendment’s due process of law protections, double
jeopardy clause protection, and the right against self-incrimination, 8th Amendment
prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment including excessive misappropriate sentence,
and the U.S. Supremacy Clause Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.”
As usual, defendant’s claims are remarkably slim on any specifics to identify an
issue that is even capable of review. Defendant can point to no errors of law, and no
errors of fact. He patently does not know what “double jeopardy” means. By pleading
no contest and admitting the enhancements, defendant waived his due process and self-
incrimination rights. The only right that defendant specifically complained about below
was the right to a speedy trial. Defendant had waived that right and agreed to extend the
time for trial to begin. He maintained below that he was somehow tricked or coerced into
waiving this right, but he never suggested how this was accomplished. Defendant’s
sentence to three years eight months imprisonment for two admitted offenses, plus two
years for prison term priors, was neither cruel nor unusual. Defendant’s own misconduct
while he was on a Vargas release resulted in modification of the agreement to impose and
suspend this state prison sentence, rather than vacating the prison sentence. In either
case—vacated prison sentence or suspended prison sentence—defendant was placed on
supervised probation. The resulting punishment was extremely lenient, considering
defendant’s recidivist record.
14
IV. An Examination of the Entire Record Discloses No Arguable Issues
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
HOLLENHORST J.
15
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding no merit in his claims of misconduct or procedural error and concluding that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his hotel room, backpack, and mobile phone.
Whether the defendant's plea was validly entered and free from fraud, duress, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
Whether the defendant's sentence and the imposition of prison term enhancements were legally proper.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence.”
“Defendant’s many claims of error are patently without merit.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”