People v. Tapia CA2/8
Filed 1/8/14 P. v. Tapia CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B245474
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA 391773) v.
PASCUAL BARRAGAN TAPIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry A. Bork, Judge. Affirmed.
Hart J. Levin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Shira B. Seigle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
******
Defendant Pascual Barragan Tapia appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count of sale of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a). Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict. We disagree, and affirm the judgment. FACTS In April 2010, Detective Guillermo Mixer and Officers Enrique Robledo and Andrew Paredes of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began a joint task force investigation of Robert Lujano. Lujano was believed to be involved in the sale of firearms and narcotics. During the year-long investigation of Lujano, the LAPD employed a confidential informant (the informant) to engage in approximately 15 to 20 undercover narcotics purchases. Of those, at least three transactions involved the sale of methamphetamines. On April 21, 2010, Detective Mixer set up an undercover operation that required the informant purchase two ounces of methamphetamines from Lujano. The operation was scheduled to take place on the following day. On April 22, 2010, the informant was searched at the task force’s staging area immediately before the actual operation began to protect the operation’s integrity. Once the search was completed and no contraband was found on the informant, Detective Mixer gave the informant $2,000 to purchase two ounces of methamphetamines. Officer Robledo, dressed in plain clothes, drove the informant to Lujano’s house. The informant was equipped with a transmitter and recording device. Officer Robledo also was equipped with a transmitter. Detective Mixer monitored the informant and Officer Robledo through their transmitters. Upon arriving at Lujano’s residence, the informant called Lujano. Lujano came out of his residence and approached Officer Robledo’s vehicle. Lujano instructed the informant to follow him to another location to meet with the methamphetamine supplier. Officer Robledo and the informant followed Lujano to a Numero Uno Market parking lot. Lujano was seen speaking to a driver of a black Honda, which was already parked in the lot. Lujano remained in his truck during his interaction with the other driver.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)