People v. Hammond CA3

Filed 12/9/13 P. v. Hammond CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Glenn) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072045

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12NCR09173)

v.

SCOTT JAMES HAMMOND,

Defendant and Appellant.

Based on stipulated facts, a court convicted defendant Scott James Hammond of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count I), transportation of oxycodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count II), and possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1; count IV). The court acquitted defendant on the remaining counts (being under the influence of methamphetamine and driving with a suspended license, both misdemeanors; counts III and V, respectively). Granted probation, defendant appeals. He contends (1) the trial court committed reversible error in failing to advise and obtain his waiver of his constitutional rights to

1

confrontation and against self-incrimination, and (2) insufficient evidence supports his convictions for transportation in that his minimal movement of the drugs from his pocket to the floor of his car was insufficient to show the element of carrying or conveying the substances. We will affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing. When arraigned on the information, defendant waived advisement of his rights on the information. Defense counsel stated that he had discussed with defendant “waiving his right to a jury trial and doing a court trial on this matter” but that they were “not stipulating” to transportation, arguing that it was “a personal use case.” The People also waived trial by jury. The court then engaged in the following colloquy with defendant: “The Court: And Mr. Hammond, I don’t know if you heard what I was mentioning to the last person who was waiving their right to a jury trial to have this issue basically before what we call our appellate courts. We’re really looking at a set of circumstances to have an area of law cleared up here. But just what I told him, based upon the current set of the law, unless there’s some substantial difference on the facts that you would be presenting me, I probably would find you guilty at a court trial. “Do you understand that? “The Defendant: Yes, sir. “The Court: You still wish to have a court trial? “The Defendant: Yes, sir. “The Court: All right. And you know the difference? You had an opportunity to talk to [defense counsel] about the difference between a court trial and a jury trial? “The Defendant: No, but I heard you talking to the last guy. “The Court: So you know the difference then? “The Defendant: Yes, sir. “The Court: Thank you, Mr. Hammond.”