Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. DL026321 John C. Gastelum, Judge.
Stephen S. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MOORE, J.
Substantial evidence supports the court’s order to sustain the allegation that minor possessed marijuana for sale. We affirm.
I
FACTS
DL026321-008 Petition
On January 15, 2010, a notice of hearing on juvenile probation violation petition was filed against the minor Pedro A. It alleged: “On February 23, 2007, the Juvenile Court ordered the minor to obey the usual terms and conditions of probation specifically to report to the probation officer as directed. The minor failed to obey the order, in that on or about October 27; November 4, 18, 25; December 2 and 9, 2009, the minor failed to report to the probation officer as directed.”
On April 23, 2010, the juvenile court found the allegations true. He was committed to juvenile hall for 180 days.
The court stated: “It would be 180 for the probation violation and 30 for that new case.”
DL026321-009 Petition
On March 15, 2010, a petition subsequent was filed against the minor. It alleged: “Count 1: On or about July 09, 2009, in violation of Section 11359 of the Health and Safety Code (POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA FOR SALE), a FELONY, PEDRO [A.] did unlawfully possess for purpose of sale marijuana.” The court conducted a hearing.
At “about 15:45 hours” on July 9, 2009, Patrick Rich an Orange County sheriff gang enforcement officer, and two other members of his team, were wearing plain clothes in an unmarked car driving through “the Villa, ” a “high narcotics area” in San Juan Capistrano. They noticed “a group of male Hispanic subjects, ” some of whom they knew to be Varrio Viejo criminal street gang members loitering.
Rich described what he saw and thought: “The two that I saw originally, Angel Reta and Misael Rodriguez, were actually 15 feet north of the area known as the ‘brown spot.’ They were posted up. They were dressed down. They were looking around. It drew my attention to them because they were looking around very adamant in the way they were doing it as maybe — or led me to believe there was something going on in the area of criminal activity.” The team knew that both Reta and Rodriguez were Varrio Viejo gang members and both were on probation. Rich knew the minor was on probation, too.
The primary activities of Varrio Viejo are “assault with deadly weapons, victim/witness intimidation, robberies and narcotics sales.” Rich said other gang members were “clearly acting as lookouts for the criminal activity that was going on, ” which, Rich said, was the sale of marijuana.
Rich and one of his team “made contact” with the minor. Rich asked the minor if he could search him, and the minor consented. The minor told the officer he had “bud” on him. Rich found three baggies of marijuana in the minor’s pockets, two of the baggies “were wrapped up in [a] fabric softener sheet.” The minor told the officer the drug was for personal use.
About the significance of the marijuana found on the minor, Rich gave the following opinion: “Based on my knowledge of the area, the knowledge of the type of crimes that occur there, the narcotics transactions that occur there, the fact that he had three individually packaged one-gram packages of marijuana, two in one pocket one in another pocket, the fact that I know [the minor] and know that he does not have a job or any means to get the funds to purchase approximately $60 worth of marijuana, it was my opinion that he possessed them for sales.”
At the close of the prosecution case, defense counsel stated: “Your honor, at this time I would make a [Welfare and Institutions Code section ]701.1 motion, ” arguing a lack of evidence to show the minor possessed marijuana “for anything other than personal use.” (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The court denied the motion. Among the numerous remarks made by the juvenile court in articulating its reasons for denying the motion, the court stated: “I found Detective Rich to be a very credible witness, and he has extensive experience in narcotics and gangs that was detailed in his testimony. And he did testify in court that the Villas is a gang area in San Juan Capistrano.... It’s known also for high narcotics trafficking as well.”
After the minor testified and the defense rested, the juvenile court ruled, stating: “The court did have an opportunity to observe minor’s demeanor on the stand and to evaluate his credibility, and I did not find him to be a credible witness.” The allegations in count one were sustained. The court added an additional 30 days to the 180 days he was ordered to spend it juvenile hall for a total of 210 days.
II
DISCUSSION
The minor contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his motion under section 701.1 “because there was insufficient credible evidence to sustain the finding that [he] possessed marijuana for sale.” He argues the court “merely parroted the testimony of Deputy Rich and deferred to his ‘expert’ opinion and conclusions, ” and that “an expert opinion, standing on its own, was not sufficient to withstand [his] motion to dismiss and therefore the court’s ruling was errant.”
“At the hearing, the court, on motion of the minor or on its own motion, shall order that the petition be dismissed and that the minor be discharged from any detention or restriction therefore ordered, after the presentation of evidence on behalf of the petitioner has been closed, if the court, upon weighing the evidence then before it, finds that the minor is not a person described by Section 601 or 602.” (§ 701.1.)
“Unlawful possession of a controlled substance for sale requires proof the defendant possessed the contraband with the intent of selling it and with knowledge of both its presence and illegal character. [Citation.]” (People v. Meza (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1745-1746.) A fact finder may draw an inference a defendant possesses contraband drugs for sale. (People v. Harris (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 371, 374.) “In cases involving possession of marijuana... experienced officers may give their opinion that the narcotics are held for purposes of sale based upon such matters as the quantity, packaging and normal use of an individual....” (People v. Newman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 48, 53.)
Here, Rich, who had extensive training in gang investigation and drug sales, testified as an expert. The area where he found the minor had a large amount of narcotics trafficking. He knew the minor and the members of the gang who appeared to be acting as lookouts. Selling narcotics is one of the primary activities of the Varrio Viejo gang. The minor had three separate bags of marijuana on his person, two bags in one pocket and one bag in another. The minor was unemployed. The officer opined the minor possessed the marijuana for purposes of sale. Based on this evidence, which did include the opinion of an expert but also included significant surrounding circumstances, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the minor possessed the marijuana for sale. Under the circumstances in this record, we cannot conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the minor’s motion.
III
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J., FYBEL, J.