People v. Prieto-Esparza CA3
Filed 8/12/14 P. v. Prieto-Esparza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, C075088
v. (Super. Ct. No. 13F4528)
RUBEN PRIETO-ESPARZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
In a search of defendant Ruben Prieto-Esparza’s person and vehicle following a traffic stop, officers found, among other things, a firearm and methamphetamine. After defendant pleaded no contest to driving without a license, a jury found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance, transportation of a controlled substance, and carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. But the jury found defendant not guilty of possession of a controlled substance for sale.
1
Health and Safety Code section 11379 criminalizes the transportation of specified controlled substances including methamphetamine. Courts had interpreted the word “transport” in former versions of that statute to include transportation of controlled substances for personal use. (People v. Rogers (1971) 5 Cal.3d 129, 134-135; People v. Eastman (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 668, 673-677.) However, effective January 1, 2014, the Legislature amended Health and Safety Code section 11379 to define “transports” as “transport for sale.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (c).)1 Defendant now contends that because the judgment in this case is not yet final, the amendment to section 11379 applies retroactively to him. And because the jury found him not guilty of possession for sale, his conviction for transportation of a controlled substance must be reversed. The Attorney General agrees, and so do we. We will reverse defendant’s conviction for transportation of a controlled substance. BACKGROUND California Highway Patrol Officer Jason Smith conducted a traffic stop of a truck driven by defendant in excess of the posted speed limit. Officer Smith lawfully searched defendant and found $760 in $20 bills in defendant’s pockets. Officer Smith, in conjunction with Officer Ryan Ellis of the Redding Police Department, also searched defendant’s vehicle. In it, they located 28 live rounds of .357 Magnum ammunition behind the passenger’s seat, another six rounds of the same ammunition in the driver’s side door, an unloaded .357 Magnum revolver in the center console, and a single plastic baggie containing 3.05 grams of methamphetamine next to the center console. A common dose of methamphetamine is 0.10 grams.
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)