Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robin Miller Sloan, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ43677
Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, and Sonya Roth, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FLIER, ACTING P.J.
The juvenile court declared appellant B.M. a ward of the court on the ground that she possessed marijuana for the purpose of sale. She was placed home on probation. On appeal, she contends that there was insufficient evidence that the possession was for the purpose of sale. We reject the contention, and affirm.
FACTS
About 7:30 p.m. on May 27, 2008, Officer Lawrence Sinclair of the Los Angeles Police Department was on patrol in the area of Vermont Avenue and 42nd Street. He pulled a car over because the rear view mirror on the driver’s side was broken. Appellant was one of the five or six people in the car. She was the only female in it. There was “a heavy odor of marijuana emitting from the vehicle.” Sinclair and his partner detained everyone in the car. Appellant told Sinclair’s partner that she had marijuana in her purse. A search of the purse revealed eight clear plastic baggies that held a total of 17.18 grams of marijuana. The purse search also uncovered a piece of notebook paper, folded into an envelope, which contained 1.12 grams of marijuana. The total amount of marijuana in the purse weighed less than one ounce. No paraphernalia for using marijuana was found.
Officer Sinclair further testified that he was trained in the packaging of marijuana possessed for sale. He assisted in thousands of investigations during two years he spent with the narcotics division, and he had testified as an expert approximately two dozen times in cases that involved possession of marijuana for sale. In his opinion, appellant possessed the marijuana for sale, due to the amount of it, the individual packaging in multiple bags, the lack of paraphernalia, and the fact that the area was known for narcotics sales.
DISCUSSION
Applying the appropriate standard of review (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053), we find sufficient evidence that the marijuana found in appellant’s purse, inside the eight baggies and folded piece of paper, was possessed for the purpose of sale.
Appellant relies heavily on People v. Chakos (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 357, 365-366 (Chakos), but that case involved completely different facts. The defendant possessed six ounces of marijuana at the time of his arrest, but he had a certificate from his doctor under the Compassionate Use Act, which permits possession of eight ounces of marijuana for a medical condition. The defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale after the arresting officer testified that, in his opinion, the possession was for sale. Defense cross-examination showed that the officer had never previously arrested a person who had a certificate permitting possession of marijuana. Chakos reversed, finding no “substantial evidence that the arresting officer had any expertise in differentiating citizens who possess marijuana lawfully for their own consumption, as distinct from possessing unlawfully with intent to sell.” (Id. at p. 360.)
Here, in contrast, the facts did not involve the Compassionate Use Act or any possibility that the possession of the marijuana was lawful. In this type of case, “‘an officer with experience in the narcotics field may give his opinion that the narcotics are held for purposes of sale based upon matters such as quantity, packaging, and the normal use of an individual. On the basis of such testimony convictions of possession for purposes of sale have been upheld.’ [Citations.]” (Chakos, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 364, quoting People v. Hunt (1971) 4 Cal.3d 231, 237.) Officer Sinclair had the requisite experience, and he gave convincing reasons for his opinion that the marijuana was possessed for sale.
Appellant also relies on U.S. v. Abuelhawa (2009) 523 F.3d 415. Abuelhawa held that use of a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase does not constitute use of a communication facility to facilitate drug distribution, for the purpose of a federal felony statute. We see nothing in Abuelhawa that supports appellant’s position.
We therefore find that Officer Sinclair’s testimony provided substantial evidence that appellant possessed the marijuana for the purpose of sale.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: BIGELOW, J. MOHR, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.