In re Jose A. CA2/3
Filed 8/5/14 In re Jose A. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
In re JOSE A., a Person Coming Under the B252629 Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ43480) THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kevin Brown, Judge. Remanded and affirmed with directions. James M. Crawford, 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, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________
Petitioner, Jose A., appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered following an adjudication hearing during which the juvenile court found he possessed marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), a felony (count 1), and sold, offered to sell or transported marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor (count 2). The juvenile court placed Jose A. at home on probation. We remand the matter and direct the juvenile court to correct the minute order reflecting the adjudication and disposition to show the court found count 1 to be a felony and count 2 to be a misdemeanor and, in all other respects, affirm the order of wardship. FACTUAL AND PROCEDUAL BACKGROUND 1. Facts. a. The prosecution’s case. At approximately 9:40 a.m. on April 16, 2013, Los Angeles School Police Officer Steven Gastelum was on patrol in the area surrounding South Region High School in Los Angeles. Approximately two miles from the school, the officer conducted a traffic stop. Jose A. was seated in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. When the officer approached the car, Gastelum smelled a “strong odor” of marijuana. The odor seemed to be coming from a backpack and when Gastelum asked whose pack it was, Jose A. indicated it belonged to him. When the officer looked inside the backpack, he found “[t]en individual[ly] wrapped bags of [a] green leafy substance resembling marijuana.” There were, however, no smoking paraphernalia, such as papers, a lighter or a pipe in the backpack or on Jose A.’s person and his fingertips were not stained from smoking. Under the circumstances, Officer Gastelum believed Jose A. possessed the marijuana for the purpose of sale. Rachel Redmond is the senior criminalist for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. She analyzes substances believed to be controlled substances. In the present case, Redmond received an evidence envelope which contained “10 similar-sized Ziploc bags [each of which] contained green plant material.” The estimated total net weight of the material when removed from the
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)