People v. Watts CA3

Filed 9/30/14 P. v. Watts CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Glenn) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075868

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13NCR09664)

v.

HUBERT FRANKLIN WATTS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In the course of an arrest, a police officer removes a cell phone from the arrestee, not knowing there is contraband hidden in the phone’s battery compartment. The officer places the cell phone in a bag at the site of the arrest and brings that bag into the jail separately from the arrestee. Does the arrestee have a right to control or exercise dominion over that cell phone while in jail, such that he is in constructive possession of the contraband inside the phone while in jail? On the evidence here, the answer is “no.”

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 13, 2013, Orland Police Officer Grant Carmon arrested defendant Hubert Franklin Watts, Jr. When he searched defendant at the site of the arrest, Officer Carmon found (among other items) three cell phones and a cell phone battery in defendant’s pockets. Officer Carmon placed these items in a paper bag and put them in his patrol car. Later on at the police department, Officer Carmon told defendant he would be bringing the phones to the jail along with defendant’s other property. Just before entering the jail, Officer Carmon asked defendant if he had any contraband and defendant answered no. While inside the jail, another officer inspected the cell phones that Officer Carmon brought in and discovered a loose object inside one of the phones. The other officer handed the phone to Officer Carmon, who opened the phone to find a white pill in the battery compartment. The pill was identified as carisoprodol. Based on the pill in the cell phone, a jury found defendant guilty of unauthorized possession of drugs in jail. Based on a separate incident, defendant was also convicted of possession of oxycodone and possession of drug paraphernalia. Taking into account some enhancement allegations defendant had admitted before trial, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of nine years and four months, which included six years for the charge of possessing drugs in jail. DISCUSSION There Was Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Possessed Drugs While In Jail Defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support his conviction for unauthorized possession of drugs in jail. The standard of review is well settled. We review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence, that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.)