People v. Waters CA3

Filed 1/10/24 P. v. Waters CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096851

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF21- 0000453) v.

JOHNTA LEXUS WATERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Johnta Lexus Waters has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Waters filed a supplemental brief raising two issues. First, he argues he is factually innocent of the charges and entitled to a jury trial. Second, he argues the trial court wrongfully denied his Marsden1 motions. We disagree. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Waters, we will affirm the judgment.

1 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of four separate incidents. In the first, A.R. reported his SUV stolen. Officers found the stolen SUV in the parking lot of a hotel a few days later. The hotel clerk saw Waters sitting in the driver’s seat, but Waters got out of the car before the officers responded to the scene. When the officers arrived, Waters approached them and said his brother allowed him to borrow the car. A.R. identified Waters as the person he let test drive the car the day before. In the second incident, a police officer responded to a report Waters locked himself in the laundry room of an apartment complex. The witness at the apartment saw Waters enter the laundry room. When the witness tried to open the door, Waters shut the door, locked it, and said he wanted to charge his phone. When they searched him, officers found Waters had a glass pipe for smoking methamphetamine. In the third incident, officers responded to a call that Waters and another man were in the laundry room of a different apartment complex. This time officers found Waters had metal knuckles and 0.32 grams of methamphetamine. In the final incident, officers responded to another complaint that Waters entered another laundry room area of an apartment. This victim reported she was frightened by Waters’s presence. When the officers instructed Waters to leave the laundry room, he did so, and the officers detained him without incident. Waters told the officers he entered the laundry room to charge his cell phone. The information charged Waters with two counts of first degree burglary and enhancements that a person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the burglary. (Pen. Code,2 §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) It also charged Waters with possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), possession of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11377,