People v. Fogelman CA1/3

Filed 6/16/14 P. v. Fogelman CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A136610 YVONNE FOGLEMAN, (San Mateo County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SC074562A)

This is an appeal from judgment following appellant Yvonne Fogleman’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale. Appellant challenges this judgment on the sole ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish the methamphetamine found in her residence belonged to her. We reject this evidentiary challenge and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 10, 2011, an information was filed charging appellant with one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Appellant waived her right to a jury trial, and a bench trial began May 21, 2012. The following evidence was presented at this trial. A. The Prosecution’s Case. On September 15, 2011, about one month before the crime charged in this case was committed, several members of the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force, including Special Agents Luis Leyva and Lance Sandri and Sergeant Daniel Guiney of

1

the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, began surveillance of the residence at 55 San Benito Road in Brisbane (hereinafter, the residence). Acting on a tip, these officers were on the lookout for a white Subaru owned by identified narcotics dealer Enrique Quintero, who had told an undercover officer his supplier lived in Brisbane. At about 2:30 p.m. the same day, the white Subaru arrived at the residence, and the driver, later identified as Quintero, exited the vehicle holding a white plastic bag with something inside. A woman, later identified as appellant and recognized by Sergeant Guiney from prior drug investigations, came out of the residence to greet him. After opening and closing the trunk, Quintero went inside the residence with appellant. Between the time appellant and Quintero first entered the residence and the time Quintero left in the Subaru with the same white plastic bag in the early evening, six separate visitors came to the residence. First, at about 3:29 p.m., a white Ford pickup parked in front of the residence. Appellant exited the house, approached the truck, and spoke briefly to the occupants. About a minute later, the truck left and appellant went back inside. Then, at about 3:49 p.m., a woman approached the residence on foot. Appellant opened the door and appeared to engage in a hand-to-hand transaction with this woman before she left a few minutes later. Next, at about 4:55 p.m., a black Volvo arrived. Appellant came out of the residence, briefly approached the Volvo and made contact with the occupant(s) before the Volvo drove off a few minutes later. Less than five minutes later, at 4:58 p.m., another white Ford pickup arrived, this one with San Francisco County tags. Appellant left the house and entered the pickup, which then drove off only to return a few minutes later. At this point, appellant returned to the residence and the pickup left. And, finally, at about 5:02 p.m., a blue Aerostar van arrived. Appellant again came outside and briefly made contact with the occupant(s) before the van drove away a few minutes later. Quintero then left at about 5:45 p.m.1