Court Opinion

ID: 9940586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 20:02:48.005415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:04.095917
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/24 P. v. Kessler CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Lassen)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097324

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                             (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                         2020CR0019317)
           v.

 BRIAN JOSEPH KESSLER,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         A jury found defendant Brian Joseph Kessler guilty of conspiracy to bring drugs
into a state correctional facility. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court
committed reversible error in admitting hearsay evidence of an unidentified inmate’s
statements as statements of a coconspirator and the error violated his due process right to
a fair trial. Finding no reversible error, we will affirm the judgment.
                                               I. BACKGROUND
         While defendant was an inmate at the California Correctional Center in Lassen
County, the investigative services unit found a strip of suboxone under the stamp on the

                                                             1
envelope of a greeting card addressed to defendant. The greeting card, postmarked
February 2, 2019, was addressed from “Cassie Brooks” and stated, “Dear Brian, missing
you and Happy Valentine’s Day. Love Cass.” The name “Cassie Brooks” was not listed
in prison records or public records, and the mailing address of “826 Ohio Street, Gridley,
California 95948” was not in any public records or home search applications. Cassie
Brooks was not an approved visitor for defendant, but defendant’s significant other, J.D.,
was. J.D. was not an approved visitor for any inmate other than defendant.
       Officer Jerald Schmidt of the investigative services unit testified that inmates
commonly receive strips of suboxone in the mail, because it can be easily concealed and
is highly potent. Officer Schmidt also testified that inmates sometimes trade suboxone
for services from other inmates, including getting tattoos.
       As part of the investigation, Officer Schmidt listened to over 40 digital recordings
of phone calls made from the prison to J.D. Several phone calls referenced “Cassie” or
“Cassidy” and tattoos. Defendant also mentioned “numbers” in one of his phone calls to
J.D. Officer Schmidt explained that “numbers” refers to Green Dot, which is similar to a
prepaid credit card. Inmates commonly use Green Dot to buy contraband in jail, and it is
common to hear inmates talking about “numbers” when discussing Green Dot
transactions. When an inmate wants to buy contraband, he contacts someone outside the
jail and asks for a Green Dot number for a specified amount of money. Then, that person
gives the numbers to the inmate that wants to buy the contraband. That inmate then gives
the numbers to the inmate he is buying contraband from, and the inmate that is selling the
contraband contacts someone outside the jail to redeem the value of the numbers.
       In a phone call on September 20, 2018, defendant told J.D. that he wanted to get
tattoos and asked her to send him ink patterns and pictures of her and their children for
inspiration. Defendant also told J.D., “But you know those things that, um, that you get?
That you do? . . . They’re worth, like, four hundred.” J.D. responded, “All right. Well,
I’ll figure it out.” On October 11, 2018, defendant called J.D. again and told her,

                                             2
“[S]omebody’s . . . gonna call you up, right? Them – them things are like three hundred
in here.” Defendant added, “And then I call you with numbers and then you just check
the numbers and make sure they’re good.”
       On March 13, 2019, defendant called J.D. and told her, “I really need to talk to
Cassie for this weekend.” Defendant explained that he wanted a tattoo and said, “I have
to talk to her to see what’s goin’ on to see if I can get it from her. You know what I
mean?” On June 12, 2019, defendant called J.D., and she told him that she was getting
ready for a doctor’s appointment. Defendant asked, “Oh what’s it for? Talk to Cassidy?”
J.D. responded yes.
       On July 26, 2019, defendant called J.D. and told her, “[W]e’ll just have Cassidy
help ya,” while they were discussing her visiting him at the prison. J.D. told defendant
that she may not be able to get Cassidy’s help but told him she would do her best. The
next day, J.D. went to the prison to visit defendant. Officer Schmidt asked J.D. if she had
any controlled substances with her, and she told him that she had a prescription for
suboxone in her purse. Officer Schmidt looked at the prescription but could not
remember the doctor’s name. If it had been Cassie or Cassidy, Officer Schmidt would
have noted it.
       The district attorney charged defendant with conspiracy to bring drugs into a state
correctional facility. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4573.) The jury found defendant
guilty as charged and the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years.
                                    II. DISCUSSION
       On appeal, defendant contends that the unidentified inmate’s statements in a
January 30, 2019, phone call were not admissible as statements of a coconspirator. (Evid.
Code, § 1223.)1 Specifically, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.

                                             3
support the preliminary facts required to admit evidence under section 1223. Defendant
further asserts that the error was prejudicial and violated his due process rights by
rendering his trial fundamentally unfair.2 We conclude any error was harmless and did
not violate defendant’s due process rights.
A.      Additional Background
        Officer Schmidt also testified about a January 30, 2019 call from an unidentified
inmate in the prison to J.D. The unidentified inmate told J.D. he was calling her on
behalf of defendant, and that “[defendant] wanted to know how much that number was
worth.” J.D. responded that she was not sure but could find out. Then, the inmate said,
“[Defendant] wanted to know about, uh, about Cassid[y].” J.D. responded, “[I]t[’]s on its
way.”
        Defense counsel objected to this testimony on the grounds of hearsay. The People
responded that the unidentified inmate’s statements were admissible as admissions of a
coconspirator in the furtherance of conspiracy. The trial court overruled defense
counsel’s objection, because it found the evidence was sufficient to establish a conspiracy
to bring drugs into the jail. Specifically, the trial court found that there was evidence that
defendant told J.D. someone would contact her about numbers, and the unidentified
inmate indeed called J.D. and discussed numbers with her. The trial court further found
that J.D. responded according to prior conversations she had with defendant from
evidence already admitted. Also, she and the unidentified inmate specifically referred to
Cassidy. Based on the evidence, the trial court found “there was more than sufficient
circumstantial evidence to establish that person as a co-conspirator in the course of the
conspiracy.”

2 Defendant initially also asserted that the error violated the confrontation clause of the
Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution but later abandoned this claim.

                                              4
B.     Analysis
       It is unnecessary for us to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in
admitting this testimony regarding the unidentified inmate’s statements, as we conclude
any error was harmless. We review the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence under
state law pursuant to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. (People v. Duarte
(2000) 24 Cal.4th 603, 618-619.) Under that standard, reversal is not warranted unless “it
is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [defendant] would have been
reached in the absence of the error.” (Watson, supra, at p. 836.) “[T]he Watson test for
harmless error ‘focuses not on what a reasonable jury could do, but what such a jury is
likely to have done in the absence of the error under consideration.’ ” (People v. Beltran
(2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 956.) The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice
under this standard. (People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 201.)
       “A conviction of conspiracy requires proof that the defendant and another person
had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific
intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of
an overt act ‘by one or more of the parties to such agreement’ in furtherance of the
conspiracy. [Citations.] [¶] Criminal conspiracy is an offense distinct from the actual
commission of a criminal offense that is the object of the conspiracy.” (People v.
Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403, 416, fn. omitted.) However, the “[c]ommission of the
target offense in furtherance of the conspiracy satisfies the overt act requirement.”
(People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 121.)
       Multiple phone calls between defendant and J.D. established that defendant
wanted J.D. to send him suboxone to sell in prison so that he could get tattoos. It is
common for inmates to trade suboxone for getting tattoos from other inmates. Defendant
told J.D. what the suboxone was worth in prison and that he wanted tattoos. J.D. agreed
to help defendant bring suboxone into the prison by saying that she would figure it out.
Defendant also discussed “numbers,” which is how inmates buy and sell contraband in

                                              5
prison, with J.D. Later, defendant told J.D. that he needed to talk to “Cassie,” because he
wanted a tattoo. J.D. told defendant that she had a doctor’s appointment to talk to
“Cassidy.” J.D. also said she had a prescription for suboxone. Defendant referenced
“Cassidy” again the day before J.D. visited him, and she said she would do her best. The
envelope sent to defendant containing the suboxone was addressed from “Cassie
Brooks,” a person who could not be identified or located, and the return address did not
exist. This was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s conviction even without the
unidentified inmate’s statements. Accordingly, defendant has not met his burden to
demonstrate it was reasonably probable that he would have received a more favorable
result.
          As to defendant’s due process claim, erroneous admission of evidence is a due
process violation only if it makes the trial fundamentally unfair. (People v. Partida
(2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439.) The trial here was not fundamentally unfair. As discussed
ante, sufficient admissible evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Further, the unknown
inmate’s statements were cumulative to statements between defendant and J.D. and the
fact that suboxone was in fact mailed to defendant in prison. Accordingly, there was no
due process violation.

                                              6
                                    III. DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                           /S/

                                                   RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

EARL, P. J.

/S/

ASHWORTH, J.*

* Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              7