Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Titman CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A175277
v. SHANE PAUL DANIEL TITMAN, (Sonoma County Super. Ct.
No. 24CR09310)
Defendant and Appellant.
Shane Paul Daniel Titman appeals from a judgment of conviction after pleading no contest to four felonies and one misdemeanor in one case (docket No. 24CR09310) as part of a “global resolution” involving seven separate criminal dockets.1 After accepting Titman’s plea and the stipulated factual bases and finding him guilty, the court sentenced Titman to five years eight months in prison, ordered victim restitution, and imposed fines and fees. Titman’s notice of appeal included a request for a certificate of probable cause because, prior to the disposition, Titman had filed a motion that was never heard to quash a GPS search warrant and to suppress evidence pursuant to
1 Because only docket No. 24CR09310 is the subject of this appeal, we
limit our discussion of the other dockets as necessary to evaluate any potential claim of error.
2
Penal Code2 section 1538.5. The trial court denied the request for a probable cause certificate.
Titman’s court appointed appellate counsel now asks us to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel advised Titman of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.3 After an independent review of the record, we find no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The presentencing report prepared by the probation department in docket No. 24CR09310 details a series of residential and auto burglaries that took place in the County of Sonoma between October 5 and November 7, 2024. Property crimes detectives were aware that Titman, who “was under investigation for other thefts,” was associated with the vehicle and wearing the same hat seen in some of the crime scene surveillance videos.
On October 29, 2024, Titman was the subject of a traffic stop, during which law enforcement officers placed a GPS device on his vehicle. That same day, Detective Andrew Castro applied for a search warrant to activate the GPS device in which he explained, “Based on the fact that [the Santa Rosa Police Department] has been unable to recover any of the stolen property that we have probable cause to believe that Titman has stolen, coupled with the fact that when we attempted to perform surveillance on him
2 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3 After counsel filed a no issue brief, we requested the parties to file
informal letter briefs addressing a discrepancy in the factual basis for Titman’s plea to count 18. The parties filed a joint response agreeing that because Titman’s request for a probable cause certificate was denied, any “appellate challenge to [Titman’s] plea is not cognizable.”
3
in our undercover vehicles, he drove erratically and we were unable to safely follow him to destination where he resides, I made the decision to respond to the scene of the traffic stop and install GPS tracking device on his vehicle.” In the warrant request, Castro affied that as of 4:40 p.m. on October 29, 2024, “we have yet to monitor the movements of the tracking device and will not monitor them until we are able to get search warrant signed.” The reviewing superior court judge executed the search warrant on October 29, 2024, at 7:05 p.m., approving of the placement of the GPS device on Titman’s vehicle and permitting the monitoring of the target vehicle for 30 days from the issuance of the warrant.
The GPS device enabled law enforcement to associate Titman with two properties he repeatedly frequented located at Lupine Lane in Sebastopol. On November 13, 2024, law enforcement secured an additional warrant to search the properties, as well as Titman’s person and his vehicle. The ensuing search of the two residences “resulted in the recovery of items from multiple thefts.”
On November 14, 2024, Titman was the subject of a traffic stop. When speaking with the detaining officer, Titman asked, “You work with me? I’ll cut you a deal right now because I’m, . . . gonna be in trouble, so, right now, because . . . of what’s in the car.” The officer responded in part, “I’m listening,” and Titman directed, “Well go look in the back of the trunk.” The officer searched the car pursuant to the warrant and discovered multiple firearms and ammunition in the trunk.4 Titman was arrested, advised of his
4 At different pages in her opposition to the motion to quash and
suppress evidence, the district attorney represents first 12, and then 10 firearms were recovered from the vehicle. As is explained below, Titman was ultimately charged with the unlawful possession of 15 firearms and pled to the possession of two of them (a handgun and a sawed-off shotgun), thus, the
4
Miranda5 rights, and agreed to speak with law enforcement. He informed the officers that he had stolen the firearms found in his trunk from an address in Glen Ellen and “drop[ped] a pin” on a map on Castro’s phone to show him the exact location.
On November 15, 2024, Titman was charged by felony complaint with 20 counts arising out of burglary and theft-related incidents taking place on November 3 and November 14, 2024. On December 3, 2024, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed a first amended complaint that added an additional count for theft of a firearm committed on November 3, while out of custody on bail or his own recognizance, and two counts related to an October 6, 2024 auto burglary. In total, the first amended complaint alleged 22 felonies and one misdemeanor arising out of incidents on three different dates6 that included burglary, the possession of stolen property, the possession of methamphetamine, and multiple charges for the unlawful possession of 15 different firearms plus ammunition.7 The first amended
different representations in the record do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
5 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
6 Counts 1 and 2 were alleged to have taken place on November 3,
2024; counts 3 through 21 were alleged to have taken place on November 14, 2024, and counts 22 and 23 were alleged to have taken place on October 6, 2024.
7 All the offenses in the first amended complaint were charged as
felonies with the exception of the methamphetamine possession alleged in count 21. The enumerated charges are count 1, grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2), with a special allegation pursuant to § 12022.1); count 2, burglary of a locked shed (§ 459); count 3, unlawful manufacture or possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun (§ 33215); counts 4 through 14, unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon, with five prior felonies alleged (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); count 15, unlawful possession by a felon of an “AR- Style Rifle with telescoping stock, short barrel and pistol grip” (§ 29800,
5
complaint also alleged 12 factors in aggravation relating to the crimes and five relating to Titman.
Between the December filing of the first amended complaint and the accompanying arraignment on January 9, 2025, the court unsealed and ordered provided to Titman’s defense attorney the GPS warrant secured on October 29, 2024. On March 6, 2025, Titman filed a motion to quash the GPS warrant and to suppress any recovered evidence pursuant to section 1538.5. The motion asserted that officers had improperly placed a GPS tracking device on Titman’s vehicle on October 29, 2024, at 4:40 p.m., hours before the court issued the warrant at 7:05 p.m. that same night. On June 2, 2025, the district attorney filed an opposition.
But the motion to quash and to suppress was never heard or decided by the court. Instead, on October 31, 2025, Titman executed and filed a “Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea” form that purports to enumerate the crimes to which Titman intended to plead no contest with their “Maximum Penalty/Maximum Term” as follows: count 2, section 33215 and California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2), three years; count 4 (after crossing out “3”), section 29800, subdivision (a)(1), eight months; count 18, section 496,
subd. (a)(1), however the felony conviction chart included within counts 4 through 14 appears to have been inadvertently omitted from count 15); count 16, unlawful possession of an assault weapon, specifically an “AR-Style Rifle with telescoping stock, short barrel (13 inches), and a pistol grip” (§ 30605, subd. (a)); count 17, unlawful possession of ammunition and reloaded ammunition by a felon, with five prior felonies alleged (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)); counts 18 through 20, receiving or possessing property known to be stolen and each exceeding $950 in value in the form of a Texas Instrument Calculator, a satellite phone, and power tools (§ 496, subd. (a)); count 21, unlawful possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); count 22, burglary of a motor vehicle (§ 459); and count 23, malicious destruction of the vehicle, with the damage exceeding $400 (§ 594).
6
subdivision (a), eight months; count 21, Health and Safety Code section 11377, one year, resulting in a “Maximum Total Punishment” of four years four months for the felony convictions plus one year for the misdemeanor Health and Safety Code violation. However, an “Addendum to Tahl forms” filed with the felony waiver form and referenced on the record represented that Titman’s plea agreement in docket No. 24CR09310 was part of a “global resolution” that included changes of plea in six additional criminal dockets resulting in a total prospective sentence of five years eight months with additional time running concurrently.
After orally advising Titman of his constitutional rights and accepting his verbal waiver, finding it was “knowing, voluntary, and intelligent,” the court accepted Titman’s change of plea in the different dockets as follows.
Three felonies and one misdemeanor in docket No. 24CR09310:
section 33215 for the unlawful possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun (referred as count 2 on the waiver form and on the record but corresponding with count 3 of the first amended complaint; see further correction below); section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) for the unlawful possession of a nine- millimeter handgun by a felon (initially referred to as count 3 on the record and waiver form but corrected at the same hearing to show a violation of count 4); section 496, subdivision (a) for the unlawful possession of stolen property exceeding $950 in the form of a satellite phone (consistently referred to as count 18, although the first amended complaint alleges count 18 concerns the possession of a Texas Instruments Calculator and count 19 concerns the possession of the satellite phone); and Health and Safety Code section 11377 for the unlawful possession of methamphetamine (count 21). Titman also admitted his prior felony convictions and that his criminal
7
convictions are “numerous or of increasing seriousness” as a factor in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2).
Titman then entered no contest pleas or admissions in six additional criminal dockets, consistent with the addendum: in 3205,8 Titman admitted a felony violation of section 459, the second degree burglary of a white Honda Pilot on May 26, 2024. In 9277, Titman admitted an amended misdemeanor violation of section 459, the second degree burglary of a vehicle on October 2, 2024, as well as a misdemeanor violation of section 530.5, subdivision (a), also known as identity theft. In 1733,9 Titman admitted a felony violation of section 459 in the second degree. In 5094, Titman admitted a misdemeanor violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), the unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In 1354, Titman admitted a felony violation of section 459, burglary in the second degree. In 0905, Titman admitted misdemeanor violations of section 459.5, shoplifting, and section 484g, subdivision (b), the fraudulent use of an access card on July 21, 2023.
For all, the court accepted Titman’s pleas and admissions, found him guilty and the admissions to be true, dismissed or struck remaining counts and clauses, and continued the matter for sentencing on a no time waiver basis as was requested by Titman’s defense counsel.
8 We refer to this and the other criminal dockets by the last four digits
of their docket numbers, as the trial court did and is shown in the addendum.
9 The docket No. 23CR01733 is the subject of a separate appeal in case
No. A175260, which challenges the trial court’s rulings on a different motion to suppress pursuant to section 1538.5 and a subsequent motion under section 995. Our holding here makes no determinations concerning that appeal.
8
On November 26, 2025, the court began the hearing by recognizing “a technical error” regarding the pleas entered on October 29, 2025. Specifically, the court noted, “As it relates to Docket [No. 24CR09]310, defendant pled to the [section] 33215 charge. That is correct. That was what was intended. It was listed as Count 2. It should have been properly listed as Count 3 in the first amended complaint.” The court suggested that Titman be permitted to withdraw his plea to count 2 and enter a new plea to count 3, the count number for the intended violation of section 33215. Defense counsel agreed and “waived irregularities.” Titman was given the opportunity to discuss the matter with his attorney but declined, instead asking the court directly, “I just want to clarify. So it’s the same charge, just the count was miscorrect.” The court answered, “We called it 2. We should have called it 3.” Titman responded, “Thank you” and proceeded to enter a plea of no contest to a felony violation of section 33215 as count 3 of the first amended complaint.
The court found Titman guilty, and with counsel’s stipulation that there was no legal cause for delay, proceeded to sentence Titman consistent with the “Addendum” to his October 29 waiver form. Specifically, in docket No. 24CR09310 that is the subject of this appeal, the record, minute order, and abstract of judgment reflect the following sentences: count 3, felony violation of section 33215, upper term of three years; count 4, felony violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(a), one-third the midterm for eight months consecutive; and count 18, felony violation of section 496, subdivision (a), one- third the midterm for eight months consecutive. In 3205, count 1, a felony violation of section 459 for one-third the midterm of eight months consecutive. In 9277, count 1, a felony violation of section 459 for one-third the midterm of eight months consecutive. In 1733, count 1, a felony violation
9
of section 459 for the low term of 16 months to run concurrent with the preceding five-year eight-month sentence. And in 1354-1, a felony violation of section 459 for the low term of 16 months also to run concurrent with the preceding sentence.
In docket 3210, the court reserved restitution “generally,” ordered one of the firearms returned to its owner in lieu of restitution, and ordered Titman to pay a $300 restitution fund fine pursuant to section 1202.4, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction fee. An additional $300 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45 was ordered but suspended unless parole is revoked. Titman was awarded 378 days actual custody credit plus 378 days conduct credit for a total of 756 days and was committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
On December 12, 2025, Titman filed a timely notice of appeal in docket No. 24CR09310, requesting a certificate of probable cause and referencing the “[section] 1538.5 [motion] that was filed but not heard.” On December 22, 2025, the court denied his request.
DISCUSSION
“No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere . . . except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.” (§ 1237.5; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) If a request for a certificate of probable cause has been denied, any appeal is limited to issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court,
10
rule 8.304(b)(3).) Specifically, no certificate of probable cause is required to challenge “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5” or “[t]he sentence or other matters occurring after the plea or admission that do not affect the validity of the plea or admission. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(A), (B); People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096 [“The defendant may take an appeal without a statement of certificate grounds or a certificate of probable cause if he does so solely on noncertificate grounds, which go to postplea matters not challenging his plea’s validity and/or matters involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested pursuant to section 1538.5”]; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74 [“it is settled that two types of issues may be raised in a guilty or nolo contendere plea appeal without issuance of a certificate: (1) search and seizure issues for which an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed”].)
Here, the denial of Titman’s request for a certificate of probable cause based on a section “1538.5 [motion] that was filed but not heard” raises no arguable issues. First, Titman did not file a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s denial of his request for a certificate of probable cause, which is the only method by which the denial of the certificate and, potentially, the merits of any motion to suppress could be brought before this court. (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676 [“If the trial court wrongfully refuses to issue a certificate, the defendant may seek a writ of mandate from the appellate court”].) As such, our review on appeal is limited to “[t]he sentence or other matters occurring after the plea or admission that do not affect the validity of the plea or admission.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(B).) While, as stated, a certificate of probable cause is not
11
required to contest a motion to suppress under section 1538.5 that has been denied (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1)(B); People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1096), as Titman appropriately represents, his motion to quash the GPS warrant and motion to suppress was never heard. Thus, it would be improper to decide at an appellate level an evidentiary motion that was never put before the trial court. (People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084 [“we do not issue advisory opinions”].)
Second, although the entry of plea and associated record is confusing and required multiple corrections, we again see no arguable issues. “[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.” (People v. Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 79.) Therefore, if Titman wanted to challenge the court’s imposition of the five-year eight-month sentence explained in the “Addendum” rather than the five years four months listed as the “Maximum Punishment” set forth on the first page of the waiver form, “it was incumbent upon defendant to seek and obtain a probable cause certificate in order to attack the sentence on appeal.” (Ibid., citing § 1237.5.) Because he did not, and because Titman and his attorney agreed to the imposition of the five-year eight-month sentence for the “global resolution” of seven cases, we see no arguable issue.10 An examination of the record and the counts to which Titman pled, even with corrections, also presents no arguable issues. The waiver form and advisement of rights filed in docket No. 24CR09310 specified no contest pleas
10 In addition, had Titman been sentenced to only the counts to which
he pled in docket No. 24CR09310, the sentence would have been five years rather than five years four months as listed, because the court would have been able to only impose one-third of the 12-month misdemeanor term. (§ 1170.1, subd. (a).)
12
to four charges: section 33215 (erroneously listed as count 2); section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (initially listed as count 3 but corrected on the record, waiver form, and minute order to show count 4); section 496, subdivision (a) (count 18); and Health and Safety Code section 11377 (count 21).
On the record at the October 29, 2025 change of plea hearing, the parties stipulated there was a factual basis for the misdemeanor and specified that the section 33215 violation was based on Titman’s November 14, 2024 possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun; the section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) violation was based on his November 14 possession of a nine-millimeter handgun, having been previously convicted of a felony; the section 496, subdivision (a) violation was based on his November 14 possession of “property exceeding $950 in value, that had been stolen or obtained in a manner constituting theft—specifically, a satellite phone— knowing that the property had been stolen or obtained in such a manner.” The court proceeded to take Titman’s plea for each charge, and in doing so, noted that the section 29800 violation was in fact count 4 in the first amended complaint, not count 3. With the consent of defense counsel and Titman, Titman’s plea to count 3 was withdrawn, and he entered a no contest plea to count 4; the accompanying waiver form and minute order were adjusted to reflect the change. Titman admitted his prior felony convictions and his “violation of aggravating factor 4.421(b)(2).” The court accepted Titman’s pleas and admissions, found him guilty and the admissions true, and set sentencing on a no time waiver basis. At no time did the court, counsel, or Titman note a discrepancy in the factual basis stipulated to for count 18, which the first amended complaint alleges is based on the unlawful possession of a Texas Instruments Calculator rather than the satellite phone
13
stipulated to that is in fact the subject of the section 496 violation alleged in count 19.
The court then took Titman’s change of plea in the six additional dockets enumerated in the “Addendum.” As relevant to the sentence ultimately imposed here, these pleas included two additional burglary convictions, anticipated to add eight months each to Titman’s sentence, and two second degree burglary convictions, each carrying a 16-month sentence to run concurrently with the imposed prison commitments, so that the total “global disposition” would result in a total prison commitment of five years eight months. The additional dockets were set for sentencing with docket No. 24CR09310.
On November 26, 2025, the date properly set for a no time waiver sentencing (§ 1191 [“the court shall appoint a time for pronouncing judgment, which shall be within 20 judicial days after the verdict, finding, or plea of guilty”]), the court began the hearing by recognizing and correcting the previously noted “technical error” concerning the section 33215 no contest plea. Counsel “waived irregularities,” and Titman was permitted to withdraw his plea to “count 2,” which had been alleged in the first amended complaint as a November 3, 2024 burglary rather than the intended plea to the unlawful possession of a sawed off shotgun. This correction presents no arguable issue.
Similarly, although the stipulated factual basis for the felony violation of section 496 in count 18 was stolen property in the form of a satellite phone rather than the Texas Instruments Calculator actually alleged, both items had been recovered in the November 14, 2024 search and were valued at over $950, thus properly serving as a basis for a felony finding; neither count was the subject of restitution ordered at the time of sentencing, and both counts
14
carried an eight-month prison commitment consistent with the five-year eight-month sentence that had been agreed upon as part of the global disposition. (See, e.g., § 1192.5, subd. (b) [“When the plea is accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open court and is approved by the court, . . . the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the plea”].) “Although section 1192.5 requires the trial court to satisfy itself there is a factual basis for the plea, this can be done by having the defendant describe the conduct or answer questions, by detailing a factual basis, or by having defense counsel stipulate to a particular document . . . . [Citation.] . . . [Citation.] . . . ‘The trial court’s acceptance of the guilty plea, after pursuing an inquiry to satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea, will be reversed only for abuse of discretion.’ ” (People v. Marlin (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 559, 571–572, quoting People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 443.) Ultimately, any potential error is noncognizable without a probable cause certificate and thus does not present an arguable issue. (People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364–1366 [challenge to court’s section 1192.5 inquiry to establish a factual basis for a plea is not cognizable on appeal without a certificate of probable cause].)
The restitution order, fines, fees and assessments appear to have been authorized by law.
Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
15
DESAUTELS, J.
We concur:
STEWART, P. J.
RICHMAN, J.
People v. Titman (A175277)