People v. Goodman

Opinion

THE COURT.

Defendant was charged in count I of the information with sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11531) and in count H with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530.5). Defendant’s motion under section 995 of the Penal Code was granted as to count II, and that count was dismissed. Defendant pleaded not guilty to count I. His motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the mandate of

Eleazer

v.

Superior Court,

1 Cal.3d 847 [83 Cal.Rptr. 586, 464 P.2d 42], was denied. Defendant waived jury trial. The cause was duly submitted on the transcript of the preliminary hearing in accordance with the requirements of

In re Mosley,

1 Cal.3d 913 [83 Cal.Rptr. 809, 464 P.2d 473]. The court found defendant guilty on count I. Proceedings were suspended. Defendant was placed on three years’ probation. He appeals.

On May 1, 1970, Sergeant Urista of the Los Angeles Police Department was told by an informant named Phil Staab that Staab had been defendant’s roommate at La Mancha Hall just off the U.C.L.A. campus for about one

[286]

month, and that he had seen defendant make sales of marijuana and dangerous drugs. This was the first contact Urista had ever had with Staab, and it was initiated by Staab. On the basis of this information Richard Haro, an undercover police officer, accompanied Staab to defendant’s room where the sale which forms the basis for the present charge was consummated between Haro and defendant in Staab’s presence. Approximately 10 minutes after the completion of this transaction defendant was arrested by Haro and Urista.

Several hours after the arrest, Urista paid Staab $65 for the information he had provided. Urista was cognizant of the requirements imposed upon police officers by

Eleazer

v.

Superior Court, supra,