 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Roles6/4/2004
Alexander D. Robles (defendant) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for possession of heroin. He also challenges the trial court's refusal to dismiss one or more of his strike priors. Finding no error, we affirm his conviction and sentence.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant was charged with one count of possession of heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) The information alleged four prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) A jury convicted him on the substantive charge. In a bifurcated trial, the court found the prior conviction allegations true.
The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss strikes and sentenced him to 25 years to life.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
FACTS
The San Bernardino Police Department conducted a sting operation, selling heroin in an area known for drug trafficking. The day before the operation, Officer Scott Roebuck (Roebuck) obtained 12.04 grams of tar heroin from the county crime lab. Criminalist Paul Mirra (Mirra) tested the substance before releasing it to Roebuck and determined that it was heroin. Officer Mark Aranda (Aranda) received the heroin from Roebuck and packaged it for sale in plastic bindles. The weights of the individual pieces varied, but each bindle contained a useable quantity of heroin. The majority weighed either two-tenths or four-tenths of a gram.
Using a pager confiscated from a known heroin dealer, Officer Gary Schuelke (Schuelke) received calls from people wishing to buy heroin. He would return the call and arrange for the caller to purchase heroin from Aranda at a particular location. He would then relay the information to Aranda, who would conduct the sale.
Defendant, another man and a woman approached Aranda to purchase heroin. Defendant asked for a gram of heroin. A gram of heroin apparently normally sells for $100. However, defendant had only $10. Aranda agreed to take $10 and extend him credit for the rest. Defendant examined the product, said it looked good, and gave Aranda $10. Aranda handed defendant six bindles, containing an approximate total of 1.2 grams of heroin. Aranda also sold six bindles to each of defendant's companions.
Aranda alerted other members of the team to the sale and described defendant and his companions and their vehicle. Other officers arrived and arrested defendant and his companions. Aranda was not involved in the arrest. He came to the arrest location and identified defendant as one of the people who purchased heroin from him. Eleven or 12 bindles of heroin were retrieved from the arrest location. There was no evidence that any of the heroin was in defendant's possession or under his immediate control when he was arrested.
DISCUSSION
1. Substantial Evidence
Defendant argues that the absence of evidence that any heroin was discovered on his person or within his immediate control when he was arrested and the discrepancies in police testimony concerning the amounts of heroin sold to defendant and his companions and the amounts returned to the crime lab render the evidence as a whole so suspect that it does not amount to legally sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, the court examines the entire record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, to determine whether the record "discloses substantial evidence -- that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value -- such
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|