People v. Watson CA4/1

Filed 5/28/21 P. v. Watson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D078635

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR131034)

ANTHONY MARIO WATSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed. Anthony Watson, in pro. per.; and Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1992, Anthony Watson pleaded guilty to sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352). He was granted probation, which was later revoked, and he was sentenced to prison.

In 2020, Watson filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47

(Pen. Code,1 § 1170.18). The trial court denied the petition, finding Health and Safety Code section 11352 did not qualify for reduction to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. The court also found Watson had been convicted of murder in case No. CRN17643. 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. Watson has filed a supplemental brief which

we will discuss below.2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Was Watson entitled to have his conviction for sale of cocaine base in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352 designated a misdemeanor?