People v. Moore CA4/3

Filed 9/11/14 P. v. Moore 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G050240

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI1102514)

MICHAEL ADAM MOORE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, John M. Tomberlin, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury found defendant Michael Adam Moore guilty of possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). In a bifurcated trial, the court found a prior strike to be true. The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of two years and eight months with various fines and fees. In his appeal, defendant contends (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction, (2) the jury instruction dealing with possession for sale was incorrect, (3) the court erred in admitting evidence of his prior felony conviction, and (4) the court erred in failing to strike his prior strike. We disagree with each of these contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Shortly after midnight, Officer Johnnie Mamon stopped defendant’s vehicle after observing an apparent traffic violation. Upon approaching the vehicle, Mamon noted odors of alcohol and marijuana. Defendant got out of his vehicle but did not exhibit symptoms of being under the influence. Mamon asked defendant if he carried anything that would cut or poke him, to which defendant responded he had two baggies of marijuana in his pocket. Mamon removed two Ziplock baggies, each containing approximately 1.4 grams from defendant’s front pants pocket. Defendant stated he had four more baggies under the floor mat and that he had a medical marijuana recommendation. Mamon concluded, based on the amount of marijuana found and the manner in which it was packaged, that defendant possessed the marijuana for sale and then placed him under arrest. Mamon read defendant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]. Defendant told Mamon he had been a truck driver but now sold marijuana for money. He was coming from a pool hall in Victorville