People v. Soliz CA2/6

Filed 11/18/24 P. v. Soliz CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B333746 (Super. Ct. No. 2022027042) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

STEVEN SOLIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Steven Soliz appeals following a trial at which the jury found him guilty of failing to register annually as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (c); count 1)1, failing to register every 30 days (id., subd. (a); count 2), and possession of a controlled substance with a section 290, subdivision (c) prior (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 3.) The jury found true several allegations. (§ 290.018, subdivision (b); § 290, subdivision (c).) The court sentenced appellant to 16 months in prison on count 1.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The court imposed concurrent terms of 16 months in prison on count 2 and 90 days in jail on count 3. The count 3 term was deemed served based on appellant’s credits. Appellant contends his count 3 conviction must be reversed because admission of a criminalist’s testimony and a report prepared by a non-testifying criminalist violated the Confrontation Clause, resulting in prejudice. The People concede a violation occurred. We will reverse appellant’s count 3 conviction and otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was previously convicted of indecent exposure. (§ 314, subd. (1).) Appellant had acknowledged his duty to register in writing on three occasions. He last successfully completed registration on July 25, 2019. In October 2022, Deputy Francisco Gil contacted appellant and searched his person. Deputy Gil, who had drug identification training, found a baggie with a white, crystalline-like substance he recognized as methamphetamine. Ventura County Sheriff forensic scientist Maria Contreras tested the substance Deputy Gil recovered. She authored a “CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES REPORT” with a result of “[m]ethamphetamine.” According to the report, Contreras’s examination methods were “[c]olor tests” and “[i]nfrared spectroscopy.” Contreras signed the report. Supervising forensic scientist Trevor Booth signed as the technical and administrative reviewer. Over objection, the court admitted the report into evidence as an exhibit. Booth, not Contreras, testified at trial. He stated: “[W]e found the white crystalline material to be . . . methamphetamine or a substance containing methamphetamine.” Booth had not