People v. Ibarra CA3

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 2015 No. C072556AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for furnishing methamphetamine but reversed the trial court's true findings on prior prison term enhancements due to insufficient evidence regarding the statutory 'wash out' period. The case was remanded for a limited retrial on the prior prison term allegations.

Issues

Did the trial court err in its Pitchess motion ruling?
Did the trial court err in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction on constructive possession?
Was there sufficient evidence to support the true findings on the defendant's prior prison term enhancements?

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Having independently reviewed the sealed transcript of the Pitchess proceeding, as well as the materials reviewed at that proceeding, we conclude the court followed proper Pitchess procedures and did not err when it declined to order discovery.”

“The trial court did not err when it refused defendant’s pinpoint instruction.”

Filed 2/18/15 P. v. Ibarra CA3 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072556

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F00954)

LIDIA IBARRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lidia Ibarra appeals her conviction for furnishing methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a).1 She requests that we review the sealed transcript of the Pitchess2 hearing to determine if the trial court properly denied the motion. She contends the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. 2 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

with her proposed pinpoint instruction, and that insufficient evidence supported the court’s true finding regarding her three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The People agree with defendant’s Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) claims. We agree with the parties that the trial court’s true findings on defendant’s prior prison term allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we shall remand for the proper determination to be made regarding the prior prison terms. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 4, 2012, Sacramento police officers found one gram of methamphetamine in a baggie, inside a closet, in Rachel Lopez’s apartment. Lopez, the apartment manager, told the police that defendant had given her the methamphetamine a few hours earlier.3 She also told the police that defendant lived in the apartment complex and usually paid her rent “in methamphetamine.” When police subsequently arrested defendant, they found a baggie of methamphetamine in her pocket similar to the one found in Lopez’s closet. Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378) and furnishing methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)).4 The People further alleged

People v. Ibarra CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C072556

LIDIA IBARRA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DUARTE , J.

MURRAY , J.

AI Brief