P. v. Ortiz CA2/5

Filed 8/9/13 P. v. Ortiz CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B245601

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA096879) v.

RAFAEL ORTIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bruce Marrs, Judge. Affirmed. Tomas Requejo for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) Appellant contends the trial court failed to excuse a juror for cause and there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. His contentions are meritless.

I. FACTS

A. Prosecution

Appellant was a captain with the Los Angeles Fire Department and a reserve deputy with the Los Angeles Sheriff‟s Department. On December 30, 2011, a baggie of cocaine fell from the area of his waistband and landed on the ground as he walked through the sheriff‟s department. The baggie was eventually found by a sheriff‟s deputy. Surveillance video showed the floor clear of debris prior to appellant‟s entry into the area. After a sheriff‟s deputy spoke to appellant about the issue, appellant contacted Andrew Grzywa—the battalion fire chief in charge of his unit. Appellant told Grzywa that the sheriff‟s department had taken his credentials because a controlled substance may have fallen from his pocket at the sheriff‟s station. Appellant said the baggie containing the substance could have been something he collected when participating in an arrest. However, three days later he called Grzywa and changed his story. Grzywa described appellant‟s second explanation as follows: “[A] few months prior . . . he got into . . . his own personal vehicle, and discovered a small baggie of what he believed to be cocaine. At that point in time, he explained . . . that . . . one of his sons had been driving the vehicle, along with one of his friends, and it was after his son had been driving the vehicle that he discovered the cocaine.”