California Court of Appeal Mar 24, 2015 No. D064746Unpublished
Filed 3/24/15 P. .v Sanders CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D064746
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD239270)
STEPHEN CHARLES SANDERS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F.
O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.
Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In March 2013, a jury found Stephen Charles Sanders guilty of two counts of
soliciting murder (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (b); counts 1 and 2; all further statutory
references are to the Penal Code), soliciting robbery (§ 653f, subd. (a); count 3),
soliciting burglary (§ 653f, subd. (a); count 4) and soliciting a narcotic offense (§ 653f,
subd. (d); count 5). Sanders waived his right to a jury trial on allegations, as to the first
four counts, that he was out on bail when he committed the offenses (§ 12022.1, subd.
(b)), and the court found the allegations true. In June, Sanders entered a negotiated guilty
plea in case No. SCD235740 (Court of Appeal No. D064743); that plea bargain provided,
as to that case, the instant case and three other cases, for a stipulated 25-year sentence and
waiver of the right to appeal. In September, the court sentenced Sanders to 25 years in
prison, including, in the instant case, two years (one third the middle term) on count 1
with two years for the bail enhancement, concurrent terms on counts 2, 3 and 4 and credit
for time served on count 5. The court struck the remaining bail enhancements. Sanders
appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2012, Sanders told Joseph Etcheverry, his former cell mate, about
a kid who lived in a condominium complex where Sanders once lived. The kid was a
marijuana dealer who always had from two to five pounds of marijuana in his home, with
each pound worth $3,000. The dealer kept about $20,000 in "working money." Sanders
told Etcheverry, "whatever he's got in his house, if we can get in his house we'll clean
him out." Sanders also said the dealer kept money in a safe in his parents' home. Sanders
had gone by the parents' home the previous night around dark and noted there were no
cars and no dogs. Sanders suggested Etcheverry masquerade as a law enforcement agent,
conduct a raid of the parents' home, tell the parents they were accessories to their son's
drug dealing and take money from them. Sanders drove Etcheverry to the dealer's
2
condominium complex, said there was only one security camera, showed him how to get
through the gate and pointed out the dealer's condo and car. Then Sanders drove
Etcheverry to the parents' home. Stephens said their safe contained at least $50,000.
Sanders told Etcheverry he had $17,000 to buy four pounds of cocaine at a
discount in Los Angeles. Sanders wanted to transport the cocaine to Hawaii. He said, "I
can't take it myself, but I want to go over there so when someone flies over with it I can
be able to catch it and then go give it to my boys . . . ." Etcheverry recommended
Sanders use a woman named KK. Sanders suggested buying KK an airplane ticket on the
Internet. Etcheverry and Sanders agreed that KK would hide the cocaine in balloons in
her body cavities. Sanders said he had conducted a dry run by traveling to Hawaii
"looking everywhere seeing if there's any feds on me."
On February 9, 2012, Sanders and Etcheverry again discussed crimes targeting the
drug dealer and his parents. Sanders suggested the following. He and Etcheverry would
have two-way radios. They would go to the dealer's condominium complex and wait for
him to come home at night. When Sanders saw the dealer's car, he would radio
Etcheverry. Etcheverry would walk up to the dealer, claim to be a law enforcement
agent, zip tie his hands behind his back and say, "we have to search your house." Sanders
listed the pros and cons of robbing the dealer before the parents and vice versa.
Etcheverry asked Sanders what they were going to do about Preston James, the
victim in Court of Appeal No. D064743. (We grant Sanders's request for judicial notice
of the record in that case.) Sanders replied, "I wanna fuckin' get his fuckin' ass if I can
find out where he's at. I'm just, I'm gonna have my fucking silencer all dialed in and get
3
it all fuckin' hushed up and we'll fuckin' just deal with his fuckin' ass." Sanders said "I'll
have everything figured—if we're gonna do that, I'll have everything figured out about
it." Sanders said he had a lot of guns and a silencer. He had driven to the town where
James was living with his father to familiarize himself with the area, and he planned to
find out exactly where James's home was. Sanders told Etcheverry, "together we should
be able to fuckin' get everything dialed." After killing James, Sanders planned to kill a
female witness in the case in which James was a victim. Sanders had thought of "lobbin'
a grenade through her bedroom window and fuckin' blowin' her up . . . ." Sanders was
concerned if the female was killed first, the district attorney would realize he and
Etcheverry were killing witnesses and their bail would be revoked. When Etcheverry
asked if "there was someone else" in addition to James and the female, Sanders named
Nick Neff, another victim.
Sanders said he had obtained two kilos of cocaine the previous night in Los
Angeles. He showed Etcheverry where he kept it and asked if KK was willing to
transport the cocaine. Etcheverry said yes. Sanders said he wanted to meet KK and
discuss the matter with her and Etcheverry. Sanders and Etcheverry talked over how
much they should pay KK and estimated how much cocaine they could hide in her body
cavities. Sanders planned to take KK to the airport and be on the plane with her.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
4
(Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists,
as a possible, but not arguable, issue, whether the waiver of appellate rights was knowing,
intelligent and voluntary.
We granted Sanders permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has done so
and raises issues arising from the discovery and admission of evidence relating to
surveillance and the recording of his conversations. These matters occurred before
Sanders's June 2013 plea agreement in case No. SCD235740, in which he waived his
right to appeal in the instant case. The waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
Sanders is thus precluded from raising the issues on appeal.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issue
listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Sanders
has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding that his waiver of appellate rights in a negotiated plea agreement was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, thereby precluding his claims on appeal.
Issues
Whether the defendant's waiver of appellate rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Whether the record discloses any reasonably arguable appellate issues under People v. Wende and Anders v. California.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Sanders is thus precluded from raising the issues on appeal.”
“A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”