People v. Wilson CA4/1 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 3/1/21 P. v. Wilson CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          D076841
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD282109)
    DEVION WILSON,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
    Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Judgment affirmed. Request for judicial notice
    denied.
    Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney
    General, Steve Oetting and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for
    Plaintiff and Respondent.
    A jury convicted Devion Wilson of unlawful possession of a firearm
    (count 1, Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and ammunition (count 2, § 30305,
    subd. (a)(1)).1 It also found Wilson guilty of a misdemeanor, possessing a
    controlled substance, a lesser included offense of possession for sale (count 3,
    Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). The court sentenced Wilson to a six-year
    prison term.
    On appeal Wilson challenges only his misdemeanor sentence. He
    contends the court violated section 1170.1(a) (section 1170.1(a)) by imposing a
    full consecutive term instead of one-third of the full term. Wilson also
    contends the court abused its discretion by refusing to recommend the
    Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation place him in “fire camp.”
    We conclude section 1170.1(a) does not apply to adult misdemeanor
    convictions, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in not
    recommending Wilson for service as a wildland firefighter. Accordingly, we
    affirm the judgment.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    In 2011, Wilson was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with an
    accompanying gang enhancement. After violating probation, he served a
    seven-year prison term.
    In June 2019, San Diego police officers made a traffic stop on a
    Maserati in which Wilson, on parole and armed with a 9-millimeter semi-
    automatic handgun, was a backseat passenger. He also had $1,600 in his
    sock, all in $100 bills. In Wilson’s nearby parked car, police found a digital
    scale and 17.51 grams of cocaine.
    The San Diego County District Attorney charged Wilson with
    (1) possession of a firearm by a felon (count 1); (2) felon in possession of
    ammunition (count 2); (3) possession for sale of a controlled substance
    1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    2
    (count 3); and possession of a firearm by possessor of a controlled substance
    (count 4). A prison prior and strike prior were also alleged.
    A jury returned guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 2. After acquitting
    Wilson on count 3, the jury convicted him of simple possession as a lesser
    included offense. The court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count 4
    after the jury deadlocked on that count.
    In bifurcated proceedings, Wilson admitted being on parole when
    committing these offenses. He also admitted the strike prior.
    The court sentenced Wilson to (1) the upper three year term on count 1,
    doubled for the strike prior; and (2) the upper three year term on count 2,
    doubled for the strike prior, the execution of which was stayed under section
    654. On the misdemeanor, a consecutive 292-day sentence was imposed, with
    credit for 146 actual days plus 146 conduct credits, the entirety of Wilson’s
    presentence credits. The court dismissed the prison prior, assessed various
    fines and fees, and declined defense’s counsel’s request to recommend the
    Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation place Wilson in “fire camp.”
    DISCUSSION
    A.    The Court Properly Sentenced Wilson to a Full Consecutive Term
    Where a defendant is convicted of two or more felonies and the court
    imposes a consecutive prison term, the court must calculate the aggregate
    prison term. (§ 1170.1, subd. (a).) The aggregate term is the sum of the
    principal term, the subordinate term(s), and any enhancements. (Ibid.)
    Generally, the principal term is the greatest term for any of the crimes.
    (§ 1170.1, subd. (a).) The subordinate term for each consecutive offense is
    ordinarily “one-third of the middle term of imprisonment prescribed for each
    other felony conviction for which a consecutive term of imprisonment is
    imposed.” (Ibid.)
    3
    Wilson contends that by failing to sentence the misdemeanor either
    concurrently with the felony—or if consecutively, in the manner prescribed by
    section 1170.1(a)—the court imposed an “illegal” sentence.2 In evaluating his
    claim, we begin with the statutory text. Section 1170.1(a) provides in part:
    (a) Except as otherwise provided by law . . . when any
    person is convicted of two or more felonies . . . and a
    consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed . . . the
    aggregate term of imprisonment for all these convictions
    shall be the sum of the principal term, the subordinate
    term, and any additional term imposed for applicable
    enhancements . . . . The subordinate term for each
    consecutive offense shall consist of one-third of the middle
    term of imprisonment prescribed for each other felony
    conviction for which a consecutive term of imprisonment is
    imposed . . . .” (Italics added.)
    Since 1872, the Legislature has distinguished between felonies and
    misdemeanors. (§17, subd. (a).) By its plain language, section 1170.1(a)
    applies only where a person is convicted of “two or more felonies” and a
    consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed for the “felony conviction.”
    Here, the consecutive term Wilson challenges is for a misdemeanor
    conviction. Therefore, section 1170.1(a) does not apply.
    In re Eric J. (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 522
     (Eric J.) reinforces this conclusion.
    There, a juvenile court found that a minor had committed a felony (burglary)
    and a misdemeanor (contempt of court). (Id. at pp. 525‒526.) The Supreme
    Court stated that in adult cases, the Legislature had “clearly indicated its
    intent” that section 1170.1 applies “only in imposing sentence for felonies.”
    2      The Attorney General contends Wilson has forfeited this issue by
    failing to object to the court imposing a full consecutive misdemeanor term.
    However, we consider the point because a sentence that is not authorized by
    law may be challenged for the first time on appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 
    9 Cal.4th 331
    , 354.)
    4
    (Eric J., at p. 537.) In contrast, in juvenile matters, the Legislature
    manifested a different intent in Welfare and Institutions Code section 726,
    subdivision (c), which provides, “If the court elects to aggregate the period of
    physical confinement on multiple counts . . . the ‘maximum term of
    imprisonment’ shall be specified in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section
    1170.1 of the Penal Code.” (Eric J., at p. 536, fn. 3.)3 Harmonizing these two
    statutes Eric J. holds that in juvenile matters, the one-third formula for
    subordinate terms applies to both felonies and misdemeanors:
    “By directing in [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 726
    that the juvenile court measure the maximum period of
    confinement for ‘multiple counts’ in accordance with
    subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 1170.1, without
    restricting the application of the consecutive term
    provisions of that subdivision to felony counts, the
    Legislature recognized the different circumstances of
    juvenile and adult commitments, and indicated its intent
    that the aggregation provisions of section 1170.1 be applied
    whether the offenses committed by the minor are felonies
    or misdemeanors.” (Eric J., at p. 538.)
    In asserting that section 1170.1(a) applies to his misdemeanor
    conviction, Wilson asserts we should “follow the reasoning of . . . Eric J. and
    “order the misdemeanor sentence of count 3 reduced to four months.”
    Although we follow the reasoning of Eric J., we do not agree it requires
    reduction of the misdemeanor sentence for two reasons.
    First, Eric J. turns on Welfare and Institutions Code section 726. That
    statute is not applicable to adult convictions. Second, appellate courts have
    rejected attempts to expand the holding in Eric J. to adult sentencing. People
    v. Brown (2016) 
    247 Cal.App.4th 1430
     is illustrative. There, the trial court
    3     The substance of this provision is now in Welfare and Institutions Code
    section 726, subdivision (d)(3).
    5
    imposed an upper term on a felony count, and a consecutive one-year term on
    a misdemeanor. (Id. at p. 1432.) Like Wilson, the defendant in Brown
    asserted that under section 1170.1(a), the only authorized consecutive
    sentence was one-third of that term. (Brown, at p. 1434.) Citing Eric J.,
    supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 522
    , the court in Brown rejected that contention, noting that
    Eric J.’s holding is limited to juvenile commitments, not adult prison
    sentences. (Brown, at p. 1434; see also People v. Erdelen (1996) 
    46 Cal.App.4th 86
    , 92 [rejecting section 1170.1 argument where court sentenced
    for three years on a felony and consecutive full terms for misdemeanors];
    People v. Hartsfield (1981) 
    117 Cal.App.3d 504
    , 508 [section 1170.1 “does not
    apply to a sentence for misdemeanor ordered to be served consecutively to a
    felony term”].)
    B.    The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Recommend
    Wilson for Fire Camp
    Fire camps are jointly operated by the California Department of
    Corrections and Rehabilitation and Cal Fire. Each camp houses between 80
    to 125 inmate firefighters, “mainly nonviolent offenders who have
    volunteered to be trained and deployed as wildland firefighters.” (Stygar,
    Thinking Outside the Box: A Point-Based System of Reintegration for
    California’s Inmate Firefighters (2020) 56 Cal. Western L.Rev. 455, 462
    (hereafter Inmate Firefighters).) Fire camp inmates receive two dollars per
    day, plus one dollar per hour while on a fire assignment. Additionally,
    inmates earn a two-day sentence reduction for each day spent working in fire
    camp. (Id. at pp. 471‒472.)
    “Inmates assigned to a camp receive a number of incentives for their
    hard work. When not working, prisoners are free to move about the camp
    facility as they please.[] They also receive better quality meals prepared
    onsite by fellow inmate firefighters.[] At Fire Camp, concrete walls and
    6
    barbed wire are replaced by open fields and greenery.[] The grounds
    themselves, which the inmates maintain, are outfitted with weight rooms,
    vegetable gardens, shaded picnic areas, horseshoe pits, and other niceties
    otherwise unavailable to inmates.” (Inmate Firefighters, supra, 56 Cal.
    Western L.Rev. at p. 463.)
    At sentencing Wilson’s attorney asked the court to recommend fire
    camp, stating:
    “I’d ask that the court recommend fire camp for Mr. Wilson.
    I understand he has a prior violent offense, but in this case
    I think that it might be beneficial for him to pick up a trade
    skill as well as let him help the community or learn that
    trade.”
    The court declined, stating, “I’m not going to recommend fire camp for this
    man.”
    Wilson contends the court abused its discretion in refusing to
    recommend fire camp without stating reasons. He asserts the court’s “desire
    for punishment . . . overrode a possible last chance for [Wilson] has to turn
    his life around.” To demonstrate the value of inmate fire fighters, Wilson
    asks that we take judicial notice of internet articles discussing certain
    California prisoners assigned to fire camp.
    The request for judicial notice is denied. The record does not indicate
    that these materials were presented to the trial court. Moreover, even if they
    had been, the documents are not properly subject to judicial notice. (Ragland
    v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 
    209 Cal.App.4th 182
    , 194 [improper to
    take judicial notice of “Web sites and blogs”].)
    Wilson cites no authority, and we are aware of none, requiring the
    court to state its reasons for refusing to recommend fire camp. Declining to
    7
    recommend fire camp is not a sentencing choice requiring a statement of
    reasons. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.406(b).)
    In any event, the court had ample grounds for declining to recommend
    fire camp. At sentencing the court noted that of the four people in the car, at
    least two were gang members. Wilson was on parole and directed to not
    associate with gang members. Wilson was “loaded on cocaine” when arrested
    He was also armed with a nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun fully
    loaded with hollow point bullets. Wilson explained to the probation officer
    that he was “really paranoid” due to his drug use and thought people were
    out to get him. The court could reasonably conclude that Wilson’s gang
    affiliation, history of violence, drug abuse, and refusal to conform his conduct
    to the requirements of the law made him ill-suited for a fire camp
    recommendation.
    8
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.4
    DATO, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    BENKE, Acting P. J.
    O’ROURKE, J.
    4     At the conclusion of oral argument, appellant’s counsel sought to
    preserve an issue regarding Wilson’s ability to pay certain fines and fees that
    were assessed as part of the judgment, citing a case currently pending before
    the California Supreme Court. (See People v. Kopp (2019) 
    38 Cal.App.5th 47
    ,
    review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S257844.) This contention was nowhere
    mentioned in the briefs. Absent good cause, we do not consider points raised
    for the first time at oral argument. (See, e.g., Kinney v. Vaccari (1980) 
    27 Cal.3d 348
    , 356, fn. 6.)
    9
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D076841

Filed Date: 3/1/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2021