Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA324149, Charles Palmer, Judge.
So’Hum Law Center of Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
RUBIN, ACTING P. J.
In 2006, appellant Lakisha Johnson was charged with one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). Several prison priors were also alleged under Penal Code section 667.5.
The underlying facts were pretty simple. Police received an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold out of a black car in the vicinity of 54th and Hoover Streets in Los Angeles. Arriving at the scene, one undercover officer detected the strong odor of unburnt marijuana emanating from a black Ford Explorer and called for uniformed back-up officers.
Additional officers arrived and, after appellant was detained, police searched her purse and found about one quarter of an ounce of marijuana packaged in 10 separate baggies and all enclosed in one large baggie. The marijuana was considered high grade and sold for about $5,000 a pound. The marijuana seized had a street value of about $200. Also in appellant’s purse, the police found a small digital gram scale and over $1,000 in bills of various denominations. Defendant was arrested, arraigned, pled not guilty and denied the priors.
Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress all the seized evidence. She argued the anonymous tip was insufficient to justify a detention, that it was not credible that the officer could smell marijuana from outside the car, and there was no evidence of a sale or other suspicious circumstances that supported the stop or the search. The court expressly found the officer credible, found probable cause for a vehicle search, and denied the motion.
Also prior to trial, the trial court, over defense objection, ruled that it would allow a prosecution witness to testify as to a sanitized version of what prompted the officers to go to the scene – general report of drug activity. The court also ordered the prosecution to produce photos of the marijuana and the actual scale seized from appellant. Those items were eventually received in evidence.
In his opening statement, defense counsel acknowledged that his client possessed the marijuana but explained to the jury that it was for her personal use. The single prosecution witness testified both as to the circumstances of the arrest and also why, in his expert opinion, the marijuana was possessed for sale: individual packages ready for sale, a scale, and a large amount of money in various bills. Cross-examination was directed to evidence that would suggest the marijuana was possessed for personal use, including the absence of any observation of any actual sales or efforts by appellant to entice buyers. The defense called no witnesses. Counsel agreed upon the jury instructions without objection, and the jury was instructed on the charged count as well as the lesser offense of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b).) After less than an hour of deliberations, the jury found appellant guilty of possession for sale.
Prior to sentencing, appellant waived jury trial on the priors and admitted them. At sentencing the trial court struck the two priors in the interest of justice and sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months. Probation was denied because appellant had failed to perform well on prior grants of probation. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On December 31, 2008, counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 stating he could not find any colorable issues to argue on appeal. The clerk of this court sent a letter to appellant informing her she had 30 days to file a brief or letter if there were any issues she wished us to consider. Appellant filed no response. We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues for appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BIGELOW, J., BAUER, J.
Judge of the Orange Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.