People v. Watson CA4/1

Filed 10/15/21 P. v. Watson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D079021

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. CRN17643, SCN085414) ANTHONY MARIO WATSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1993, Anthony Mario Watson pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in case No. CRN17643.

In 1999, a jury convicted Watson of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) in case No. SCN085414. In 2020, Watson filed petitions to reduce the drug conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18). The court denied the petitions, finding Watson’s prior conviction for murder rendered him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.18. 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.2 Watson has responded with a supplemental brief. We will discuss his submission below. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks us to review the record for error. Counsel, however, refuses to help the court in its review by complying with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Relying on a remark in our opinion in People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314, counsel appears to take the position he does not have to comply with Andres in a Wende review for possible error. Counsel is aware the court prefers counsel to comply with Anders to assist the court and to ensure counsel is providing competent representation to an indigent