People v. Pitts CA5

Filed 11/21/13 P. v. Pitts CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F065480 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR042109) v.

KARLA DRU PITTS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Jeffrey S. Tauber, Judge. William W. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Caely E. Fallini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The sole count of the information charged defendant Karla Dru Pitts with felony possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). On the date in question, officers served a search warrant on the residence in which Pitts lived. Officer Shant Sheklanian first observed Pitts exiting a bedroom. Pitts’s infant grandson was with her at the time, but no one else. Pitts admitted she occupied the bedroom, along with her daughter and a third individual. When Sheklanian searched this bedroom, he located a purse on top of a dresser. Inside the purse was an identification card and driver’s license for Pitts. Also located inside the purse was a brown coin pouch. Inside the coin pouch Sheklanian found a plastic bag containing what appeared to be methamphetamine. Sheklanian opined the substance in the plastic bag was methamphetamine and was a usable amount. Maria Woodcock, a criminalist with the California Department of Justice, examined the evidence obtained during the search. Inside the plastic bag she observed a small amount of white crystalline material. The bag contained 0.01 grams of substance. She tested a small amount of the material and determined it contained methamphetamine. The defense rested without calling any witnesses. The defense argued during closing argument that the substance found was not a usable amount within the meaning of the law and asserted there was insufficient evidence that his client possessed the substance. Pitts was convicted and sentenced to three years’ probation. DISCUSSION Pitts argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the principles of circumstantial evidence. The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 223, which defines direct and circumstantial evidence as “evidence [that] does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which