From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Billingsley

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 24, 2008
No. B205669 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE BILLINGSLEY, Defendant and Appellant. B205669 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division September 24, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA075337, Richard R. Romero, Judge.

Cynthia A. Thomas, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MALLANO, P. J.

Andre Billingsley appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of selling cocaine base and his admission that he had sustained prior felony convictions. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In the evening hours of August 14, 2007, Long Beach police officers were working with the assistance of informant William Harris on an investigation of narcotics sales. The officers gave Harris a prerecorded $20 bill and directed him to a man (defendant) and a woman (Ramona Wall) who were sitting on a bus bench in front of a gas station on the corner of Magnolia and Pacific Coast Highway.

Harris asked defendant and Wall in street vernacular if he could buy $20 worth of rock cocaine. Defendant responded, “‘I don’t know you,’” but Wall said that she knew Harris. Defendant next said to Wall, “‘Well, if you know him, then you deal with it.’” At that point, Wall stood up and walked behind the gas station, where she sat down and started smoking a cocaine pipe. Defendant remained on the bus bench and asked Harris if he was a police officer. Harris said he was not. Defendant next said, “‘If you’re not a cop, let me see you take a hit off [Wall’s] pipe.’”

In response to defendant’s challenge, Harris approached Wall and said that defendant wanted him to take a hit off her pipe. But, Harris continued, he was “‘not gonna do this in the street.’” Wall responded, “‘Give me the money. I will go see what I can do.’” Harris gave Wall a $20 bill and Wall got up and walked over to the bench where defendant was still sitting. While at the bus bench, Wall and defendant appeared to engage in a hand-to-hand exchange. Wall then said to Harris, who by that time was approaching the bus bench, “‘Wait here.’” Wall next went to the cashier’s window of the gas station, after which she returned to where Harris was standing and handed him what was later determined to be .22 grams of rock cocaine.

When the sale had been completed, Harris went to the officers’ location nearby, told them what had happened, and gave them the cocaine. As officers approached the bus bench to investigate, defendant dropped a $10 bill and two $5 bills. An officer asked defendant why he had dropped the bills and defendant responded, “‘I knew the [j]ig was up.’”

A narcotics detective testified he was of the opinion that drug dealers are aware of the possibility that a buyer might be an informant and that money might be marked by the police. Thus, when Wall went to the gas station cashier, she did so to get change for the $20 bill given to her by Harris in order to distance defendant and herself from the narcotics transaction.

Defendant did not present any evidence in his defense. He argued to the jury that Harris was not a credible witness and that aiding and abetting had not been proven because defendant had refused Harris’s request to buy drugs and no one had seen defendant giving drugs to Wall.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the conviction was “based on the inferences to be drawn from: (1) the fact that [defendant] was sitting on a bus bench in a narcotics area with a person who possessed and sold drugs; (2) that something passed between the hands [of defendant] and Ms. Wall . . .; and (3) that [defendant] had a $10 and two $5 bills on him when he was detained.” Defendant continues that “when one looks closely at these facts, it is evident these facts do not support the reasonable conclusion that [defendant] either sold or furnished the drugs sold by Ms. Wall or that he aided and abetted her transaction.” We disagree.

“On appeal we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] ‘Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “‘If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘“Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to connect a defendant with the crime and to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792–793.)

We agree with defendant that a juror could reasonably infer from the evidence that defendant was simply waiting for a bus and was merely present at the scene with no knowledge that a narcotics sale was taking place. But it is also reasonable to draw an inference of guilt from the evidence on which defendant relies, especially when considered in conjunction with further evidence that when asked by Harris for drugs, defendant responded, “I don’t know you,” defendant later asked Harris to prove he was not a police officer, defendant dropped $20 in bills when he saw officers approaching (rather than had the bills “on him,” as asserted in defendant’s argument on appeal), and defendant told officers he knew that the “[j]ig was up.”

The elements of the offense of selling a controlled substance are the sale of the substance and the defendant’s knowledge of the presence and nature of the substance. (See People v. Murphy (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 979, 984.) “‘[A]n aider and abettor is a person who, “acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the commission of the crime.”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 136.) The evidence presented in this case was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of selling cocaine base.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., WEISBERG, J.

Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

People v. Billingsley

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 24, 2008
No. B205669 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Billingsley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE BILLINGSLEY, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Sep 24, 2008

Citations

No. B205669 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2008)