People v. Watkins CA3

Filed 9/17/21 P. v. Watkins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sierra) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090440

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR03893X)

v.

BRADLEY GARFIELD WATKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Bradley Garfield Watkins filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has filed a supplemental brief that we also address. After examining the record, we have found several omissions in the abstract of judgment. We will direct correction of the abstract and affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2018, S. called 911 and reported he was pursuing defendant, whom he believed “had committed crimes against him.”1 S. identified his location, explained he had previously called the Sierra County Sheriff’s Office with a complaint that defendant and his girlfriend “had committed crimes against [the caller] on his mining claim,” and said he was “going to make contact with [defendant].” Law enforcement responded to the call and stopped defendant’s truck. S. was also present at the stop. Defendant and his girlfriend were in the truck and informed law enforcement that defendant’s rifle was in the truck. Defendant had a prior conviction for corporal injury on a dating partner. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).)2 The prosecution charged defendant with a single count of unlawful possession of a firearm. (§ 29805, subd. (a).) After the preliminary examination, defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic stop, asserting the stop violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The parties’ briefing papers explained the background behind S.’s call on the day of the stop, saying S. had previously confronted defendant and his girlfriend because they were near S.’s mining claim. S. called law enforcement and alleged defendant burglarized S.’s property. S. provided a detailed physical description of defendant and defendant’s girlfriend. He also described the truck they had been driving and gave the truck’s license plate number. A few days after S.’s initial report, another person, M., called the Sierra County Sheriff’s Office complaining he was missing some property and had seen defendant and defendant’s