Rowland

People v. Rowland

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 8, 2022H048799California9,952 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History On April 16, 2019, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Rowland with a single count of possessing or controlling matter depicting a person under 18 years of age personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a); count 1). In September 2019, Rowland filed a motion under section 1538.5 to quash the search warrant (motion) that led to a search of his residence and seizure of his electronic devices, including a “PNY Thumb Drive.” The district attorney opposed Rowland’s motion. In his opposition, the district attorney noted that the PNY thumb drive “contained an estimated 1,000 images of child pornography and 25 videos of child pornography.” On November 15, 2019, the trial court heard argument from the parties and denied Rowland’s motion. In December 2020, after the trial court indicated a sentence, Rowland pleaded no contest to count 1 as charged. 2 On January 7, 2021, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Rowland on formal probation for two years with various conditions, including serving nine months in the county jail. Additionally, the court ordered…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.