Opinion
A147652
03-13-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES DONOVAN WATKINS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-15-81512)
Defendant James Donovan Watkins appeals following a judgment entered pursuant to a no contest plea to one count of possessing marijuana for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (a)). The trial court denied probation and sentenced him to two years in state prison and imposed fines and fees. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.
Penal Code section 1237.5 generally precludes an appeal from a judgment of conviction after a plea of no contest or guilty unless the defendant has applied for, and the trial court has granted, a certificate of probable cause. There are two exceptions: (1) a challenge to a search and seizure ruling, as to which an appeal is proper under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) post-plea sentencing issues. (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) Since the trial court denied defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause, he is not able to challenge the validity of his plea or any other matter that preceded its entry, except as permitted under the exceptions. (People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 867-868.)
Defendant made no motion to suppress at the preliminary hearing, at which two officers testified as to the items they found in defendant's car, including approximately seven pounds of processed bud marijuana, more than seven grams of "honey oil," and approximately $3,000 in cash. At the time he was stopped, defendant told the officers he had purchased the marijuana from a cannabis club in Oakland, that he planned to resell it at another cannabis club for a tidy profit, and that he made this trek about every three weeks. The officers also noticed that messages on defendant's cell phone talked about different strains and quantities of marijuana, money and deals.
The trial court held defendant to answer on both counts—transporting marijuana with intent to sell (Health and Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)) and possession of marijuana with intent to sell (id., § 11359)—and an alleged prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In addition to these charges and allegations, the subsequent information alleged two or more prior felony convictions (id., § 1203, subd. (e)(4)).
After some discussion at the scheduled pretrial conference about resolving the case, defendant submitted a duly executed felony plea and waiver of rights form for a no contest plea to one count of possessing marijuana for sale and the dismissal of the transporting with intent to sell charge and the prison prior enhancement charge. After inquiry and admo nitions, the court accepted defendant's plea and set the matter for sentencing. Defense counsel advocated strongly that the court find "unusual circumstances" and grant probation or, at least, not impose an aggravated sentence. The prosecutor urged the court to impose the aggravated term of three years as recommended by the probation department.
The court found defendant not eligible for probation and sentenced him to the mid-term of two years. Given defendant's economic circumstances, the court also reduced, suspended and did not impose some fees and fines.
DISPOSITION
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment.
/s/_________
Banke, J. We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P.J. /s/_________
Dondero, J.