From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Carrasquillo

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 25, 2011
No. E051038 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. INF066739. Mark E. Johnson, Judge.

Vicki Buchanan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

Ramirez P.J.

Following a jury trial, defendant Juan Antonio Carrasquillo was convicted of one count of selling marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)) to undercover officers, and one count of possessing marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359.) He was placed on formal probation and appeals.

BACKGROUND

On April 17, 2009, California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) Investigators Vo and Garcia worked undercover at the Coachella Music Festival looking for drug violations. They were participating with other agencies in the Inland Empire Narcotics Task Force. At approximately 4:30 p.m., as the two investigators walked outside the main entrance of the festival, they heard someone hawking “Brownies, brownies.” Defendant, who was making the statements in the general public, was about 20 feet from the investigators as he repeated the statements.

Because the investigators were aware that brownies may be baked with marijuana, they approached defendant and asked him if he had any marijuana for sale; defendant responded that he did. Defendant suggested that they go somewhere away from the crowd and pointed toward the parking lot, where the three men then headed. In the parking lot, defendant asked Investigator Vo how much marijuana he wanted, so Vo told defendant he wanted $40 worth or two grams. Defendant then knelt down and reached into his right sock, removing two small baggies containing suspected marijuana. Investigator Vo handed defendant $40 in pre-marked bills, and defendant handed the two small baggies to Investigator Garcia.

After Investigator Vo handed defendant the money, Vo and his partner identified themselves as law enforcement officers and placed defendant under arrest. They searched defendant and found $972 in currency in addition to the pre-marked bills used in the hand-to-hand sale. Investigator Garcia searched defendant’s sock and found three additional baggies containing suspected marijuana. In defendant’s backpack, Garcia found baked goods, including brownies, Rice Krispie treats, lemon bars, and fudge, along with a pipe and lighter.

At the command post set up at the festival, defendant was admonished of his rights and agreed to speak to the officers. Defendant informed the officers that the baked goods were made with marijuana. Although defendant asserted the marijuana was for his personal use, the officers formed the opinion defendant possessed the marijuana for sale based on his willingness to sell, his statements, the manner in which the marijuana was packaged, and the amount of cash in his possession.

Subsequent laboratory testing revealed that the three baggies contained one gram each of marijuana and one of the pieces of fudge was found to contain marijuana. By an amended information, defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, count 1), and the sale of marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a).) Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted of both counts. Defendant was placed on formal probation for three years with credit for time served, on condition he perform 750 hours of community service among other conditions. On June 1, 2010, defendant timely appealed his conviction.

DISCUSSION

At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered appellant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record.

First, we find there was substantial evidence to support the convictions on both counts. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) Defendant testified at trial and admitted he sold two packages of marijuana to the undercover officers, conceding the elements of the sales count. Regarding the possession for sale count, when arrested, defendant possessed three more baggies of marijuana, packaged in the same manner as the two baggies purchased by the officers, and had $972 in his possession. Further, defendant acknowledged he was calling out to exchange brownies for tickets, demonstrating an intent to sell, furnish or trade marijuana for either money or tickets. The jury could reasonably infer that the remaining baggies of marijuana were possessed for sale.

Second, there was no error in denying defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the information, pursuant to Penal Code section 995. In any event, such rulings are not appealable unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice at his trial as a result of the inadequate evidentiary showing at the preliminary hearing. (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529.) No showing of prejudice at trial has been made.

Third, the court did not err in admitting evidence of (1) defendant’s statements that he was exchanging brownies for tickets, and (2) trace amounts of marijuana in the fudge, within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352. Regarding the admission of defendant’s statements, we assume he refers to the pretrial statements he made to officers which were the subject of an in limine motion. Defendant’s statements about the brownies could not have been unduly prejudicial where defendant himself testified that he was calling out to the general public that he wished to trade brownies for tickets. In any event, both officers testified that they personally heard defendant calling out – “hawking” – brownies outside the main entrance of the festival before they contacted him.

Further, the fact only one piece of fudge was tested and found to contain some amount of marijuana could not have confused the jury as to whether the charges related to the baked goods or the marijuana in the baggies. The fudge was admitted over the defendant’s objection, but the trial court instructed the jury it could consider late disclosure of the laboratory testing results, and gave an instruction limiting the evidence to the issue of defendant’s intent.

We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Hollenhorst J., Codrington J.


Summaries of

People v. Carrasquillo

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 25, 2011
No. E051038 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Carrasquillo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN ANTONIO CARRASQUILLO…

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

Date published: Feb 25, 2011

Citations

No. E051038 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)