People v. Vrana CA2/6

Filed 9/15/25 P. v. Vrana 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, 2d6 Crim No. B338106 (Super. Ct. No. 2021019323) Plaintiffs and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

DAVID LOYD VRANA

Defendants and Appellant.

Appellant David Loyd Vrana appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378)1 and transportation of a controlled substance for sale (§ 11379, subds. (a)-(c).) He contends substantial evidence does not support the convictions. We will affirm.

1 Statutory sections refer to the Health and Safety Code

unless otherwise stated.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Law enforcement received a call regarding narcotics activity in the parking lot of a Simi Valley bowling alley. The officers encountered appellant sitting in his vehicle in the bowling alley parking lot holding a cell phone. The officer knew appellant and confirmed he was on probation subject to search terms. A search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine in a plastic bag, a functioning digital scale with white powder residue on it, more methamphetamine in another plastic bag, additional plastic bags, cell phones, and two glass smoking pipes. The total weight of methamphetamine found was 20.57 grams. Appellant also had $270 in cash in various denominations in his pocket. After being informed of his Miranda2 rights, appellant stated he purchased the drug and transported it in his vehicle intending to sell it for a $50 profit. A video showed that earlier that day another vehicle was parked in the parking lot near appellant’s vehicle, that a person left that other vehicle and approached appellant’s vehicle, then left. Appellant told the officer the person left to get cash to buy the drugs from him and he was waiting for the person to return when the officers arrived. After getting appellant’s permission, the officer looked at text messages between appellant and another person where some days earlier appellant was offering to pay $270 “for one” and that he was “on [his] way.” There was also mention of a “scaly” and whether the “final score” was a specified number. Appellant was arrested. At trial, an officer testified that based on his training and experience he believed the items found at the time of arrest, the