Court Opinion

ID: 9955145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 19:02:12.582878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:17.701078
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/27/24 P. v. Watson CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No. B330218
                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 2020010397)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Ventura County)

v.

JUSTIN CHRISTOPHER
WATSON,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      In 2019, 12-year-old S.S. received a series of sexually
explicit messages on her cell phone. She later came home early
from a wedding, asked her mother if she could go to the park late
one night, and then did not want to attend school. None of these
behaviors were typical for S.S. Her mother grew concerned. She
took S.S.’s phone and determined that Justin Christopher
Watson had sent the explicit messages. The messages indicated
that Watson, then age 21, knew S.S. was a minor.
      Watson pleaded guilty to luring a minor (Pen. Code,
§ 288.3, subd. (a)), and admitted that S.S. was especially
vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)) and that he took
advantage of a position of trust to commit his crime (id., rule
4.421(a)(11)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence
and placed Watson on two years of formal probation. It also
ordered him to serve 365 days in county jail.
      We appointed counsel to represent Watson in this appeal.
After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief that
raises no arguable issues. On January 12, 2024, we advised
Watson by mail that he had 30 days within which to submit any
contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not
received a response.
      We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
Watson’s attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and
that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, 441.)
      The judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.                      YEGAN, J.

                                 2
                   Bruce A. Young, Judge

              Superior Court County of Ventura

              ______________________________

    Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.