People v. Watkins CA4/2
E075132
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 11, 2021Background
- In 1994 defendant Charles Edward Watkins was charged with transporting/selling marijuana (four counts); in 1995 a jury convicted him on three counts and he received concurrent 25‑to‑life sentences; one count and an enhancement were dismissed.
- Defendant had multiple prior serious/violent felony convictions for sexual offenses (notably convictions from 1977 and 1982/1983) that qualified as "super strike" offenses.
- In February 2019 defendant sought relief under Proposition 64 (Health & Saf. Code §11361.8) to recall/resentence his felony marijuana convictions to misdemeanors; the People opposed, arguing defendant posed an unreasonable risk to public safety.
- The court held a hearing in February 2020, admitted sentencing records, prison records, a Static‑99R, parole materials, and heard defendant testify about rehabilitation, age, health, programming, and remorse.
- The trial court found defendant posed an unreasonable risk of committing a new violent "super strike"—citing the nature of his prior sexual crimes, nexus between drug use/dealing and sexual violence, limited insight/remorse, and risk assessment results—and denied the petition.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s weighing of remoteness, age, rehabilitation, disciplinary record, and risk evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Proposition 64 relief because granting it would pose an "unreasonable risk" of a new violent felony | The People argued Watkins' history of violent sexual "super strike" convictions, the circumstances of those crimes, nexus with drug-related behavior, Static‑99R and parole materials establish an unreasonable risk to public safety | Watkins argued his advanced age, medical limitations, remoteness of prior sex crimes, long prison disciplinary record without serious violations, and evidence of rehabilitation outweigh risk factors | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; substantial evidence and proper factors supported finding of unreasonable risk and denial of petition |
| Whether the remoteness of prior offenses/age requires relief | Watkins contended decades elapsed and age/health make recidivism unlikely | The People and trial court maintained passage of time is outweighed by crime circumstances, substance‑sex nexus, lack of insight, and parole findings | Held: remoteness/age considered but did not outweigh violent history and other risk factors; no error |
| Whether defendant’s rehabilitation/disciplinal record required relief | Watkins emphasized programming, therapy, sobriety, and mostly minor institutional infractions over 25 years | The People emphasized limited targeted treatment before 2017, questionable insight/remorse, and continued risk profile | Held: credibility and sufficiency of rehabilitation evidence were for the trial court; it permissibly found rehabilitation insufficient to mitigate risk |
| Whether reliance on Static‑99R was erroneous | Watkins argued the Static‑99R was misinterpreted and overstates near‑term risk | The People cited the report showing above‑average risk; court treated it with other evidence | Held: any contested aspects of the Static‑99R did not undermine the overall finding; use of the assessment was proper and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Taylor, 60 Cal.App.5th 115 (2021) (Proposition 64 petition procedure and relief framework)
- People v. Saelee, 28 Cal.App.5th 744 (2018) (unreasonable‑risk standard under Prop. 64 tied to risk of committing a "super strike")
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (2017) (definition and scope of "super strike" offenses)
- People v. Downey, 82 Cal.App.4th 899 (2000) (abuse of discretion standard)
- People v. Hoffman, 61 Cal.App.5th 976 (2021) (age alone does not necessarily negate sexual offending risk)