California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 2015 No. D064513Unpublished
Filed 2/23/15 P. v. Marion CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064513
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD241068)
VICTOR LEE MARION,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter L.
Gallagher, Judge. Affirmed.
Dawn S. Mortazavi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Arlene A. Sevidal, Tami Hennick and Elizabeth M. Carino, Deputy Attorneys General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following a bench trial, the court found defendant and appellant Victor Lee
Marion (Marion) guilty of manufacturing concentrated cannabis in violation of Health
and Safety Code1 section 11379.6, subdivision (a). Marion appeals, contending he was
improperly prosecuted under section 11379.6 instead of section 11358, which prohibits
the cultivation, harvesting, or processing of marijuana. We affirm.
On May 15, 2012, San Diego County Sheriff Deputy Kevin Ralph investigated a
possible marijuana grow at a house in Poway rented by Marion and codefendant Danica
Parabot (Parabot).2 The home was located on a hillside in a residential community.
Deputy Ralph explained to Marion the purpose of his visit was to verify the size of the
grow. Marion admitted having around 66 marijuana plants. He also admitted to selling
the marijuana. Marion provided medical marijuana cards for himself and Parabot.
Marion gave Deputy Ralph permission to enter the property. In addition to the
house, the property contained a shed and a plastic greenhouse-like structure. Deputy
Ralph saw over 90 marijuana plants inside the greenhouse. Thereafter, Deputy Ralph
referred the case for further investigation.
On May 18, 2012, United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents
executed a search warrant on Marion's property. Inside the greenhouse, agents
discovered ventilation fans and roughly 90 marijuana plants in five gallon buckets.
Inside a garage attached to the residence, agents found four marijuana plants growing
under electric lamps and a large plastic tub containing marijuana bud. Some of the
1 All statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.
2 Parabot pled guilty to manufacturing concentrated cannabis (§ 11379.6, subd. (a)) on January 15, 2013 and was sentenced to formal probation. 2
marijuana appeared to be drying. Approximately 154 marijuana plants were found in a
large outside trash bin. Inside the house, agents found 59 marijuana clippings that had
been individually placed in plastic cups containing water. Agents also found a Pyrex
dish, glass containers, scales and utensils, all of which contained marijuana oil residue.
When the agents searched in and around the shed, they found an extraction device,
26 used and 10 unused butane containers, broken glass containing marijuana oil and a
document describing how to make and use the extraction device. The extraction device
was made of a trash can and PVC pipe. The PVC pipe had a cap on one end and a
filtering device made of coffee filters on the other end. The inside of the PVC pipe
contained 61.8 grams of filtered marijuana plant material.
In all, agents found 307 marijuana plants, 2,472.60 grams (nearly two and a half
kilos) of processed marijuana and over 7.5 grams of marijuana oil on the property.
Marion's shed was determined to be a chemical extraction laboratory pursuant to DEA
criteria.
In August 2012, the People charged Marion with one count of manufacturing
concentrated cannabis in violation of section 11379.6, subdivision (a). The parties
stipulated to a bench trial. DEA Forensic Chemist Layne Higgins testified at trial as the
People's expert on concentrated cannabis. Higgins opined Marion manufactured
concentrated cannabis through chemical extraction using butane. Higgins explained that
a chemical extraction process involves placing a chemical with some other matter in
order to separate a specific substance from that matter; that the marijuana plant contains
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana; that
"hash oil" or "honey oil" are concentrated forms of THC; and that a solvent is used to
3
extract THC from marijuana, which is then collected and dried out. Higgins noted that
butane is a common solvent used in this process. Butane chemically extracts THC from
the marijuana plant, separating it from the plant matter.
Higgins also testified about the dangers of butane. If inhaled in an enclosed space,
butane can cause asphyxiation. If touched, butane can result in burns or frostbite. In
addition, Higgins noted butane is a very flammable liquid. When used in the extraction
process, butane typically comes in a compressed can. A can must be manually depressed
in order to release butane into an extraction device. The most common way to extract
THC from marijuana is to use a PVC pipe with a cap at one end that attaches to the
butane can, and a filter at the opposite end to filter the plant material. The butane mixes
with the pure THC, which is then usually collected on a glass dish. This material is
heated to evaporate the butane, leaving only the concentrated THC. DEA Agent Justin
Faw opined this type of chemical extraction can result in explosions and serious personal
injuries.
As noted, the trial court found Marion guilty of violating section 11379.6,
subdivision (a). Marion timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Marion contends he should have been prosecuted under section 11358. He
contends section 11358, rather than section 11379.6, subdivision (a), applies because it is
the more specific statute that pertains to the cultivation and processing of marijuana.
Marion contends this error precluded the trial court from dismissing the charge under the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (§ 11362.5; the Act) and the Medical Marijuana
4
Program Act (§ 11362.7 et seq.; the MMPA) because he held a valid medical marijuana
card.3
It is axiomatic that the interpretation of a statute presents a pure question of law
that we review de novo. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24
Cal.4th 415, 432; People v. Milstein (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.)
I.
Applicable Law
A. Production of Concentrated Cannabis Generally
Section 11358 governs the unauthorized cultivation, harvesting, or processing of
marijuana. Section 11358 states: "Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or
3 As Marion correctly asserts, the Act provides a defense for qualified patients and their primary caregivers "who possess[] or cultivate[] marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician." (§ 11362.5, subd. (d).) However, the Act also states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes." (Id., subd. (b)(2).) Thus, the Act does not protect against a charge of manufacturing concentrated cannabis by means of chemical extraction given the inherent dangers associated with such a process. Similarly, the MMPA prohibits criminal liability from being imposed upon a "qualified patient or a person with an identification card who transports or processes marijuana for his or her own personal medical use." (§ 11362.765, subd. (b)(1).) Specifically, the MMPA prevents "criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570." (Id., subd. (a).) However, the MMPA does not include, nor serve as a defense to, section 11379.6. Given our conclusion post that Marion was properly prosecuted under section 11379.6, the MMPA is inapplicable in this case. Even assuming arguendo the MMPA was a defense to a charge under section 11379.6, the MMPA does not "authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit." (§ 11362.765, subd. (a).) Here, Marion admitted to selling the marijuana and would therefore fall outside the MMPA's protection. 5
processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise provided by law, shall
be punished by imprisonment."
Section 11018 specifies that "marijuana" includes "all parts of the plant Cannabis
sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds of that plant; the resin extracted from any
part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. . . ." (Italics added.)
The statutory definition of "concentrated cannabis" also includes resin extracted
from marijuana. Section 11006.5 provides that "concentrated cannabis" includes "the
separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from marijuana."
Thus, as a general matter, section 11358 applies to the extraction of marijuana
resin to produce concentrated cannabis.
B. Production of Concentrated Cannabis Through Chemical Extraction
Section 11379.6, subdivision (a) prohibits marijuana production specifically by
means of chemical extraction or chemical synthesis. It provides, "Except as otherwise
provided by law, every person who manufactures, compounds, converts, produces,
derives, processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical extraction or
independently by means of chemical synthesis, any controlled substance specified in
Section 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057, or 11058 shall be punished by imprisonment . . . ."
(Italics added.)
Section 11054, subdivision (d)(13) lists "marijuana" as a Schedule I
hallucinogenic controlled substance. THC is also listed as a Schedule I hallucinogenic
controlled substance. (§ 11054, subd. (d)(20).) While neither "concentrated cannabis"
nor "marijuana resin" is specifically mentioned in the statutory schedules of controlled
6
substances, both are components of marijuana and are thus included within the statutory
definition of "marijuana." (§§ 11018 [defining marijuana to include its resin], 11006.5
[defining concentrated cannabis as the resin separated from marijuana].)
II.
Marion Was Properly Charged Under Section 11379.6
A. Section 11379.6 is the More Specific Statute
Marion contends he should have been charged under section 11358 because it is
the more specific statute governing the production of marijuana. (See, e.g., In re
Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651, 654 [reasoning where two statutes apply to the same
conduct, the state must prosecute the defendant under the more specific statute].) Marion
acknowledges that the Second Appellate District rejected this identical argument in
People v. Bergen (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 161 (Bergen).4
Marion's activities were nearly identical to the defendant's activities in Bergen. In
that case, the defendant used chemical butane and an extraction device comprised of PVC
pipe to extract THC from marijuana plants to produce concentrated cannabis. (Bergen,
supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 165-166.) The People charged defendant with violating
section 11379.6, subdivision (a). (Bergen, at p. 164.) On appeal, the defendant, like
Marion here, argued that "because section 11358 is specific to marijuana processing, it
controls over section 11379.6(a)'s general prohibition against the manufacture of
controlled substances." (Id. at p. 167.)
4 The record also indicates Marion's trial counsel brought to the trial court's attention a then-pending case in the First Appellate District on the same issue as Bergen. That case was decided in a nonpublished opinion shortly after Marion's trial concluded. (People v. Schultz (May 20, 2013, A134582).) The Schultz court followed Bergen. 7
The Bergen court rejected this argument, concluding section 11379.6, subdivision
(a) was the more specific statute because it focused on the specific processes used to
develop controlled substances, such as marijuana. (Bergen, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at
p. 169.) The court reasoned that "[u]nlike the general prohibitions in section 11358, the
focus of section 11379.6(a) is on the particular processes employed to produce a
controlled substance—by chemical extraction or chemical synthesis. Stated differently,
section 11379.6(a) does not simply make unlawful the processing of concentrated
cannabis as does section 11358. It prohibits and punishes the specific means used to
process marijuana plant material into concentrated cannabis. In this sense section
11379.6(a) is a more narrowly drawn statute, covering only specific methods of
processing 'marijuana'—which by statutory definition includes concentrated cannabis."
(Ibid.) The Bergen court noted the "conclusion section 11379.6(a) applies to the
production of concentrated cannabis by means of chemical extraction is reinforced by a
1991 opinion of the California Attorney General." (Ibid., citing 74 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 70,
75 (1991).) That report stated a "chemical extraction" under section 11379.6, subdivision
(a) would include "'the extraction of resinous THC [tetrahydrocannabinol] or hashish
from marijuana.'" (Bergen, at p. 170.)
We agree with Bergen that section 11379.6, subdivision (a) is the more specific
statute. Marion's argument—that section 11358 "is more specific in that it only
criminalizes the manufacturing of concentrated cannabis" while section 11379.6
generally "criminalizes the manufacturing of many controlled substances"—fails to
recognize the legislative history of section 11379.6.
8
When section 11379.6 was enacted in 1985 (stats. 1985, ch. 3, § 8), section 11358
already had been on the books for more than a decade (stats. 1972, ch. 1407, § 3) and
already made it a felony to cultivate marijuana. Thus, section 11379.6 was not meant to
punish the production of marijuana generally but rather the specific situation "presented
by the dangers inherent in the chemical production, processing, and preparation of
controlled substances." (Bergen, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 170.)
B. The Legislative Intent of Section 11379.6 Includes Marion's Activities
Marion further contends the Legislature "did not intend the chemical extraction
process [of section 11379.6] to include the manufacturing of concentrated cannabis, but
only to include the chemical extractions taking place in methamphetamine laboratories."
We reject this narrow reading of section 11379.6.
The plain text of section 11379.6 contradicts Marion's argument. Section 11379.6
applies to anyone who "manufactures, compounds, converts, produces, derives,
processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical extraction . . . any
controlled substance specified in Section 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057, or 11058 . . . ."
(Italics added.) As noted, section 11054 lists both "marijuana" and THC as Schedule I
hallucinogenic controlled substances. (§ 11054, subd. (d)(13), (20).) As also noted
above, "concentrated cannabis" and "marijuana resin" are both components of
"marijuana" and are included within its statutory definition. (See §§ 11018 [defining
marijuana to include its resin], 11006.5 [defining concentrated cannabis as the resin
separated from marijuana].) Thus, Marion's claim that section 11379.6 does not include
the manufacturing of concentrated cannabis is without merit.
9
Moreover, as Bergen recognized, "[t]he Legislature [in enacting section 11379.6]
apparently intended to punish more harshly the use of chemicals in the production of
controlled substances because of the dangers posed to the public from the use of
hazardous substances, such as fires, fumes or explosions." (Bergen, supra, 166
Cal.App.4th at p. 170, italics added.) The Bergen court continued: "The legislative
history of section 11379.6 further indicates the Legislature decided use of chemicals in
producing controlled substances warranted more severe punishment." (Id. at p. 171.) As
evidence, Bergen referenced a report to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which
stated the purpose of section 11379.6 was "'to deter the operation of clandestine drug
laboratories,' with another purpose of the bill being to 'create a separate offense of
manufacturing any controlled substance.'" (Bergen, at p. 171.) We again agree with
Bergen on this point and thus reject Marion's contention that section 11379.6 applies only
to "the chemical extractions taking place in methamphetamine laboratories."
Marion's unlawful activities fit squarely within section 11379.6, subdivision (a).
Marion used the solvent butane to extract marijuana resin in producing concentrated
cannabis. As noted by the experts in this case, butane is known to be dangerous: it is a
flammable liquid, can cause asphyxiation if inhaled, and can result in frostbite if touched.
DEA Agent Faw testified that chemical extraction using butane can lead to explosions
and serious personal injuries. Marion manufactured and chemically processed the
concentrated cannabis in an outside shed deemed a chemical extraction laboratory by
DEA guidelines. The shed was located next to a house situated on a hillside in a
residential area. The trial court noted this area also constituted a "fire zone." Marion's
activities posed a risk of fire to the shed, residence, and nearby community. Thus, we
10
conclude substantial evidence in the record supports Marion's conviction under section
11379.6, subdivision (a).
Like in Bergen, "[Marion's] arguments to the contrary lose sight of the fact he was
not simply charged with producing or processing concentrated cannabis from marijuana
plant material. He used a flammable solvent in the process of extracting the marijuana
resin. It is this act—the use of a chemical in the extraction process—which formed the
basis of the charge for manufacturing concentrated cannabis under section 11379.6(a)."
(Bergen, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 173, fn. omitted.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
IRION, J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, subdivision (a) is the more specific statute governing the production of concentrated cannabis via chemical extraction, and thus the defendant was properly prosecuted under that section rather than section 11358.
Issues
Whether the defendant was improperly prosecuted under Health and Safety Code section 11379.6 instead of section 11358.
Whether the Compassionate Use Act or the Medical Marijuana Program Act provided a defense to the charge of manufacturing concentrated cannabis by chemical extraction.