Opinion
F060416
08-31-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LESLIE RAY HOOD, Defendant and Appellant.
J. Edward Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. F09902093)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Wayne R. Ellison, Judge.
J. Edward Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 24, 2009, appellant, Leslie Ray Hood, was charged in an information with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, count one) and transportation of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a), count two). The information also alleged a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In a bifurcated proceeding, appellant waived his constitutional rights and admitted the prior prison term enhancement. At the conclusion of a jury trial on April 2, 2010, appellant was convicted of count one.
The prosecutor successfully moved to have count two dismissed prior to the end of trial.
On June 14, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to prison for the mitigated term of 16 months. The court struck the prior prison term enhancement in the interests of justice. Appellant was awarded four days of actual custody credits plus four days of conduct credits. The court further imposed various fines and fees. We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
FACTS
On the evening of March 30, 2009, Police Officers Alfonso Castillo and Joshua Bowling were on patrol in Fresno. The officers were assigned to a tactical gang investigation team. They were parked near the intersection of Fresno and Madison in an unmarked patrol car to investigate a citizen complaint regarding drug sales in the neighborhood. The neighborhood was known for gang activity, narcotics sales, and prostitution activity.
Castillo testified that there were four or five individuals standing on the north side of Madison at the intersection of Madison and Fresno. The officers were about 30 yards away. Although there were businesses nearby, including a liquor store, no one from the group was going into the businesses. They appeared to be waiting for someone or something to arrive and they were using their cell phones. A white Pontiac Firebird arrived and parked on the north side of Madison just east of Fresno.
The officers were conducting their surveillance with binoculars. Appellant was driving the Firebird. Two of the five people in the group approached the Firebird. One of them, a black male, approached the driver's side of the car and handed appellant cash. Appellant handed the person a baggy but Castillo could not identify the contents inside the baggy.
A Hispanic female approached appellant in the same manner, handing him cash in exchange for a baggy. Appellant drove away eastbound on Madison at a high rate of speed. Castillo and Bowling followed appellant in their patrol car. Castillo suspected appellant was involved in illegal narcotics activity. Castillo called for assistance from a marked police patrol car.
Appellant turned north on Angus and then east onto Belmont. Officers in a marked patrol car stopped appellant at First and Belmont at a gas station. The other officers approached the driver's side of the Firebird and contacted appellant. Castillo could smell the odor of marijuana coming from inside the Firebird. Appellant was asked to exit the Firebird. At first, appellant was upset and said he did not want to exit the car. He then exited the car, identified himself, and handed over his driver's license.
When appellant exited the car, Castillo saw a green leafy substance he suspected to be marijuana, in a baggy on the driver's seat next to where appellant had been sitting. It was a larger baggy with a larger amount green leafy substance and a smaller baggy inside the larger baggy. The smaller baggy contained a smaller amount of green leafy substance.
Appellant was arrested and searched. He was carrying $340. Appellant had three cell phones. Appellant was carrying a cannabis card. The marijuana weighed between 12 and 14 grams. A criminalist tested the substance and found it was 12.89 grams of marijuana.
Detective Eric Ia, a detective with the Fresno Police Department, testified as an expert on narcotics sales. Ia explained that being in possession of 12.89 grams of marijuana and $340 in cash would not necessarily make one a suspect for drug sales. Ia further elaborated, however, that if a hypothetical person gave two baggies of an unknown substance to someone, received cash in return, and was then found in possession of 12.89 grams of marijuana, the hypothetical person would possess that marijuana for sale.
Appellant testified that he was driving through the neighborhood on Madison looking for his wife who was on a walk. Appellant had a doctor's recommendation to use cannabis medically and had never sold it to anyone at any time.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on March 10, 2011, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.