Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Bowman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Sacramento)
THE PEOPLE, C103864
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 23FE016189)
v.
CHRISTOPHER KENT BOWMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Kent Bowman asks this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to him, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In September 2023, law enforcement executed a search warrant at Bowman’s
home. At about 7:00 a.m., deputies knocked on the front door and announced that they
were with the sheriff’s department; they demanded entry at least three times. They
waited for about 25 seconds and then broke through the front door using a battering ram.
About four seconds later, they set off a flashbang grenade and entered the home. About
two minutes after that, they arrived at Bowman’s locked bedroom. After demanding
entry a few times and hearing a voice inside, the deputies kicked open the bedroom door
and arrested Bowman. Bowman’s computers, electronic devices, and electronic storage
1
devices, which were target items of the search warrant, were all found in the bedroom.
Law enforcement ultimately discovered that Bowman had accumulated over 220,000
images of child sexual abuse.
The People charged Bowman with one count of possession of child pornography.
(Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a); count one.)1 The People also alleged that: (1) Bowman
possessed more than 600 images of minors engaging in or simulating sexual conduct and
10 or more images depicting a prepubescent minor or minor under age 12 (§ 311.11,
subd. (c)(1)); (2) the crime involved planning, sophistication, or professionalism (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8)); and (3) the crime involved a large quantity of
contraband (rule 4.421(a)(10)).2
Bowman himself moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search
warrant. He argued that the deputies executing the search warrant failed to comply with
knock-and-announce requirements; that their method of entry, which included a
flashbang grenade and a battering ram, constituted excessive force; that there were no
exigent circumstances because the deputies should have known he was asleep at the time
and they did not check to see if the door was unlocked; and that Hudson v. Michigan
(2006) 547 U.S. 586, 594, which held that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule
does not trigger the exclusionary rule, was inapplicable. (See also In re Frank S. (2006)
142 Cal.App.4th 145, 152 [knock-and-announce violations do not justify application of
exclusionary rule].)
After reviewing the body camera footage of the search, the trial court denied the
motion to suppress. The court found the deputies did not act in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, reasoning that they had a warrant and that their actions in executing the
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
2
warrant were appropriate to prevent the destruction of any evidence and ensure officer
safety.
Bowman pleaded no contest to the single count of possession of child
pornography, admitted the section 311.11, subdivision (c)(1) allegation, and admitted that
the crime showed planning or sophistication under rule 4.421(a)(8). In exchange, the
parties stipulated that Bowman would serve two years’ formal probation, with Bowman
serving 300 days in the county jail. The trial court placed Bowman on formal probation
for two years with various conditions, including lifetime sex offender registration
pursuant to section 290. The court ordered him to serve 300 days in the county jail with
four days of custody credit.
Bowman timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Bowman was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening
brief. Bowman did not file a supplemental brief. We have undertaken an examination of
the record and conclude there is no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to him.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
FEINBERG, J.
We concur:
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
4