People v. Koshman CA3

Filed 9/29/25 P. v. Koshman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102206

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62169541A)

v.

LARRY CAMERON KOSHMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2023, the Placer County District Attorney filed a consolidated first amended information, consolidating case No. 62-187558 into this case (case No. 62-169541A). Defendant Larry Cameron Koshman was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit unlawful cultivation of marijuana (Pen. Code1, § 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, § 11358, subd. (c)—count one), one count of making a space available for

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

unlawfully manufacturing, storing, or distributing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.5, subd. (a)—count two), and two counts of attempting to dissuade a witness from attending or giving testimony at a trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2)—counts three & four). With respect to count one, two overt acts were alleged: (1) defendant leased two structures to unlawfully cultivate marijuana; and (2) co-defendants Robert Smith, Artemio Silva, and Alfonso Garcia unlawfully cultivated and distributed the marijuana. It was alleged as to counts three and four that defendant was released from custody on bail or on his own recognizance in case No. 62- 169541 when he committed these offenses. (§ 12022.1, subd. (b).) Defense counsel filed a section 995 motion to set aside counts two through four, and a motion under section 17, subdivision (b) to reduce the crimes to misdemeanors. The court denied both motions. Before the case was submitted to the jury, defendant successfully moved pursuant to section 1118.1 to dismiss count four. The jury convicted defendant of the remaining counts (counts one through three), and found true that he committed count three while he was out on bail or his own recognizance. Defendant filed a motion for new trial and another motion under section 17, subdivision (b) to reduce his felony convictions to misdemeanors. The court denied both motions. The court placed defendant on two years of formal probation subject to terms and conditions including that he serve 180 days in county jail, 30 of which were to be served in custody (with five days credit). The court allowed defendant to apply for alternative sentencing with respect to the remaining 150 days. On appeal, defendant: (1) argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his pretrial and post-trial motions; (2) argues the trial court abused its discretion by not dismissing all charges contained in the information under section 1118.1 on its own motion; (3) asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) requests we review the