People v. Osbourn CA1/2

Filed 9/13/21 P. v. Osbourn CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161126 v. DAVID OSBOURN, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. SCUK-CRCR-202033913)

Defendant David Osbourn appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest to one count of possession of child pornography. Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was informed of his right to file supplemental briefing and has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and independently reviewed the record, and we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm. On January 2, 2020, defendant was charged by a two-count felony complaint with possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a child under 18 years of age (Pen. Code,1 § 311.11, subd. (a)), and sale or distribution of

1 All further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

1

obscene matter depicting a person under the age of 18 years engaging in sexual conduct (§ 311.1, subd. (a)). At a preliminary hearing, Ukiah police detective Ronald Donohue testified that the investigation into the charges against defendant began in 2018 when the police department received a CyberTipLine Report (CTR) from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about child pornography images uploaded to a Twitter account. The CTR contained a name, phone number, and six IP addresses. An investigation ensued that eventually linked the IP addresses to places where defendant had been (his father’s residence and a Motel 6). Subsequently, when a Motel 6 manager told Donahue that defendant was staying at the motel, Donahue obtained a warrant to search defendant, the motel room, the vehicle defendant had parked at Motel 6, as well as the residence in the address listed in defendant’s DMV record and all vehicles associated with him. Defendant was present on the day of the search at Motel 6 (May 9, 2018) but not arrested. The search of defendant, his room at Motel 6 and the minivan defendant had been driving resulted in the seizure of, among other things, two cell phones and a digital camera. Subsequent manual searches and data extractions from the phones disclosed multiple images of child pornography, child erotica, and adult pornography. One of the images was a video on the telephone of a man about age 60 having sexual intercourse with a girl who was about 10 years old. Another was a prepubescent boy 6 to 10 years old penetrating the vagina of a nude teenage female. On one seized cell phone there were web history searches, social media apps and chat apps evidencing that defendant searched for and solicited child pornography and was looking for other people searching for the same type of material.