People v. Watkins CA3
C090440
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 17, 2021Background
- In Aug. 2018 S. called 911 reporting he was pursuing Watkins and that Watkins had committed crimes against him; S. gave identifying details including vehicle description and plate number. A dispatcher sent deputies to intercept.
- Deputies found two vehicles on a rural road matching the dispatch; the driver of the trailing car gestured to officers and identified the lead truck. The deputy stopped Watkins’ truck for equipment violations and because of the dispatch information.
- Officers asked about weapons; Watkins and his girlfriend said a rifle was in the truck. The deputy recovered the rifle, checked it with dispatch, and learned it was stolen. Watkins (a felon) was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code § 29805(a)).
- Watkins moved to suppress evidence from the stop; the trial court denied suppression, finding the 911 tip and corroborating circumstances provided reasonable suspicion under Navarette and that exigent circumstances supported the stop.
- Watkins pleaded no contest to possession while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The court sentenced him to 16 months and imposed multiple fines and assessments, but the abstract of judgment omitted several fines/fees.
- On appeal (People v. Wende procedure), the court addressed Watkins’ supplemental claims (ineffective assistance, Marsden issue, timely filing of suppression motion), found no reversible error, ordered correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect all fines, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop based on 911 tip/exigent circumstances | 911 caller was identified, gave contemporaneous eyewitness details corroborated by deputies; exigency (caller pursuing/announcing intent to confront) justified stop (Navarette) | Stop violated Fourth Amendment; tip and dispatcher information insufficient | Court upheld stop: caller was sufficiently reliable, dispatch corroboration and on-scene gestures supported reasonable suspicion; exigent circumstances also supported stop |
| Sufficiency of counsel at suppression hearing (ineffective assistance) | Counsel reasonably exercised judgment (considered calling witnesses, chose strategy after hearing) | Counsel failed to call girlfriend, delayed filing, coerced plea; ineffective assistance | No ineffective assistance: record suggests no reasonable probability of better result and counsel’s decisions were within reasonable strategy; claim also requires certificate of probable cause which was not provided |
| Failure to conduct Marsden hearing for substitute counsel | N/A (People did not oppose) | Watkins claims he wanted new counsel; trial court should have conducted Marsden hearing | No Marsden required: record lacked any clear indication defendant sought substitute counsel |
| Omitted fines/fees from abstract of judgment | Oral pronouncement imposed multiple fines/fees; abstract must match | Abstract omitted several imposed fines and fees | Ordered correction of abstract to reflect the $300 restitution fine, $30 restitution administrative fee, $40 court operations assessment, and $30 criminal conviction assessment; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (factors for reliability of tips and when corroboration supports reasonable suspicion)
- Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (an informant’s willingness to be identified increases tip reliability)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (appellate counsel files opening brief requesting record review for arguable issues)
- People v. Rios, 193 Cal.App.4th 584 (2011) (application of ineffective-assistance analysis to motions under § 1538.5)
- People v. Mitcham, 1 Cal.4th 1027 (1992) (appellate review standard when the record does not explain counsel’s choices)
- People v. Dolly, 40 Cal.4th 458 (2007) (exigent circumstances can justify a stop based on a tip)
- In re Chavez, 30 Cal.4th 643 (2003) (certificate of probable cause required to raise certain ineffective-assistance claims after a plea)
- People v. Stubbs, 61 Cal.App.4th 243 (1998) (same principle re: certificate of probable cause)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) (right to a hearing when defendant requests substitute counsel)
- People v. Zackery, 147 Cal.App.4th 380 (2007) (oral pronouncement of judgment controls; abstracts must be corrected to conform)