Filed 10/17/17 P. v. Watson CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VAUGHN R. WATSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
A150212
(Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR- 16-86846-2) |
Vaughn Watson entered a plea of no contest to a charge of manufacturing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)). It was agreed he would be placed on felony probation. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Watson on formal probation for a term of three years on condition that he serve a term of 300 days in the county jail.
Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende[1] brief, certifying that counsel has been unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also has submitted a declaration confirming that Watson has been advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We find no arguable issues and affirm
Background and Procedural History[2]
On August 4, 2016, law enforcement officers conducted a probation search of Watson and his residence in Willits, California. In the residence, they found a closed-loop extraction system to manufacture concentrated cannabis (BHO)[3] and related equipment, 3.5 pounds of BHO, and about 83 pounds of marijuana residue. Watson admitted involvement in producing BHO, but claimed he was not profiting from the operation and denied ownership of the lab.[4]
Watson was charged by complaint with one count of manufacturing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)). On August 25, 2016, Watson pleaded no contest to the charged offense, with the understanding that he would receive a probationary sentence, with a term of confinement of up to one year in the county jail.
At the November 17, 2016 sentencing hearing, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Watson on formal probation for a period of three years, with a condition that he serve 300 days in county jail. He received sentence credits for 33 actual days of custody and 32 days of conduct credits in the instant case. In addition, his probation in an earlier case was revoked and reinstated based on his conviction in the current matter.[5] Watson submitted a handwritten notice of appeal that was filed on December 27, 2016.[6]
Discussion
Watson did not seek or obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)), and so no cognizable issues are before us relating to his guilt or to his plea.[7] (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097, 1099; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74.)
To the extent Watson seeks to challenge his sentence, his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause in these circumstances is equally fatal to his appeal. His sentence was consistent with the terms of the plea bargain. “ ‘[A] challenge to a negotiated sentence imposed as part of a plea bargain is properly viewed as a challenge to the validity of the plea itself’ and thus requires a certificate of probable cause.” (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766, quoting People v. Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 79.)
Watson was represented by counsel at sentencing, and made no objection to any of the terms of probation at the time of sentence. He also accepted in writing all terms and conditions of probation. Fines, fees and penalties were properly imposed.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
BRUINIERS, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
JONES, P. J.
_________________________
NEEDHAM, J.
[1] People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
[2] The underlying facts are taken from the probation report.
[3] BHO is an acronym for butane honey oil or butane hash oil. BHO labs are used to extract tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a Schedule I controlled substance found in marijuana plants, through the use of butane. (See Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_oil> [as of Oct. 17, 2017]; U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of R.I., Dangers of Butane Hash Oil Labs Cited as Five are Charged (Mar. 30, 2016) <https://www.justice.gov/usao-ri/pr/dangers-butane-hash-oil-labs-cited-five-are-charged> [as of Oct. 17, 2017].)
[4] Watson subsequently admitted to the interviewing probation officer that he was manufacturing BHO.
[5] Watson was sentenced to a consecutive 45-day jail term for the probation violation. Against that term, he was awarded credits of 23 days of actual time served and 22 days of conduct credits, for a total of 45 days. The court initially erroneously divided the Penal Code section 4019 presentence custody credits between the two cases, and Watson received two fewer days of conduct credits than the amount to which he was entitled. Counsel represents that the error has since been corrected following an informal motion to correct sentence credits. (Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)
[6] Watson was later found eligible for drug court and released to a residential treatment program.
[7] The record, in any event, reflects that Watson was represented by counsel at the time of his plea, he executed a written waiver of rights, and he orally waived those rights before the court. The court found Watson’s waivers to be knowing and voluntary.
