Opinion
E047182.
7-13-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHANIE MARIE EVANS, Defendant and Appellant.
Eleanor M. Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
Defendant and appellant Stephanie Marie Evans appeals from a jury verdict for transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), being under the influence of a controlled substance (§ 11550, subd. (a)), and possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At trial, a police officer testified that on November 19, 2007, he was on patrol about 10:00 p.m. and stopped a pickup truck after observing two traffic violations. The driver was searched and arrested when it was discovered he was driving on a suspended license and had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The driver had a substantial amount of cash in his pocket.
Defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat of the truck. After arresting the driver, the officer spoke to defendant while standing outside the passenger side window of the truck. The officer asked defendant whether there was anything illegal in the truck. She said there was marijuana inside her purse. The officer could see the purse on the floor of the truck near defendants left foot and could also see a plastic bag with marijuana inside it. Defendant was arrested for marijuana possession. The marijuana in her purse weighed 27.8 grams.
In a postarrest search, police found a plastic bag of methamphetamine inside the center console compartment of the truck. They also found a notebook, which appeared to include a pay-owe sheet, a glass methamphetamine pipe with burn residue, some loose cash totaling less than $100, another bag of marijuana, and four cell phones. In addition to the bag of marijuana, police also found a small, digital scale and some small, empty plastic baggies in defendants purse. The loose cash in the truck plus the money found in the drivers pocket totaled $2,148.
At the police station, defendant and the driver both appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine, so blood samples were taken. The blood tests revealed that both were under the influence of methamphetamine when the samples were taken.
An expert testified that both bags of marijuana were possessed for sale. The experts opinion was based not only on the quantity and quality of marijuana in the truck but also on the presence of the scale and the large amount of cash found in the drivers possession. He said the amount of methamphetamine found in the truck was also relatively large (i.e., about 50 doses), and it could have been possessed for sale but was probably for personal use. The experts opinion was based on the fact that both defendant and the driver were methamphetamine users, a pipe with residue was found in the truck, and the methamphetamine was packaged for personal use without any additional packaging materials in the truck.
Defendant and the driver both testified at trial. Defendant admitted she used both marijuana and methamphetamine. She admitted she had marijuana in her purse, but she denied she possessed it for sale. She also testified she did not know about the marijuana found in the back of the truck or the methamphetamine in the console.
Defendant and the driver of the truck were both charged with transportation of marijuana for sale (§ 11360, subd. (a), count 1); transportation of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11379, subd. (a), count 2); possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378, count 3); being under the influence of a controlled substance (§ 11550, subd. (a), count 4); and possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359, count 5). At the time of trial, the court amended count 3, possession of methamphetamine for sale, to simple possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)).
The jury found the driver guilty on all five counts. Defendant was found guilty of transportation of marijuana (count 1), being under the influence of a controlled substance (count 4), and possession of marijuana for sale (count 5). She was found not guilty of transportation of methamphetamine (count 2) and possession of methamphetamine (count 3).
On November 21, 2008, the court granted defendant probation for a period of three years subject to various terms and conditions, including 180 days in jail.
DISCUSSION
On November 24, 2008, defendant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. On April 22, 2009, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
GAUT, J.
MILLER, J. --------------- Notes: All future statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.