People v. Aukerman CA4/3

Filed 2/28/14 P. v. Aukerman CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048479

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF0268)

JOHN PHILIP AUKERMAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Christopher Evans, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Jesse W.J. Male, Michelle Rogers and Loleena Ansari, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles Ragland and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

As part of a plea agreement, defendant John Phillip Aukerman was sentenced to four years in the county jail. The sentence was divided into one year in the county jail and three years on mandatory supervision. One condition of his supervision prohibited defendant from using “unauthorized drugs, narcotics, or controlled substances, and [required him to] submit to testing as directed by any peace officer or mandatory supervision officer.” Ten months later, a search of defendant’s residence resulted in the discovery of 32 grams of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The probation officer filed a petition for arraignment on mandatory supervision violation, alleging these facts. At the hearing, defendant presented a valid medical marijuana prescription card and argued that because the marijuana had been prescribed, his possession was “authorized.” The trial court rejected this argument and defendant repeats it here. We likewise reject the argument and affirm the trial court’s order.