People v. Saldano CA3

California Court of Appeal Apr 13, 2015 No. C074444Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that amendments to Health and Safety Code sections 11379 and 11352, which redefined "transportation" to require intent to sell, apply retroactively to non-final cases under the principles of In re Estrada. Because the defendant was acquitted of possession for sale, the court reversed his transportation convictions and remanded for sentencing on the remaining possession counts.

Issues

Whether the 2014 amendments to Health and Safety Code sections 11379 and 11352 apply retroactively to a defendant whose appeal was pending at the time of enactment.
Whether a remand is necessary to allow the prosecution to prove intent to sell after the statutory definition of transportation was narrowed.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The amendatory act imposing the lighter punishment can be applied constitutionally to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting the defendant of the act is not final.”

“We shall reverse defendant’s convictions in counts 2 and 4.”

“The sentence is vacated. The convictions in counts 2 and 4 are reversed and those counts dismissed. The matter is remanded for sentencing on counts 1 and 3.”

Filed 4/13/15 P. v. Saldano CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074444

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 11F06951, 13F00647) v.

RAUL ROBERTO SALDANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

In case No. 13F00647, a jury convicted defendant Raul Roberto Saldano of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377),1 as a lesser included offense to the charge of possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378, subd. (a) (count 1)); transportation of methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)(count 2)); possession of morphine (§ 11350), a lesser included offense to the charge of possession of morphine for sale (§ 11351 (count 3)); and transportation of morphine (§ 11352, subd. (a) (count 4)). Defendant admitted a prior strike conviction. The court sentenced defendant

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

to state prison for eight years on count 4 and to six years on count 2, that term to run concurrently with count 42; and without imposing any sentences on counts 1 and 3, purportedly stayed the sentences on those counts pursuant Penal Code section 654.3 On appeal defendant contends, and the People agree, that due to recent amendments by the Legislature to sections 11379 and 11352, his convictions for those offenses must be reversed pursuant to principles of equal protection as set forth in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada). We too agree. Discussion Defendant’s convictions in counts 1 through 4 arose from a search of his person conducted on January 29, 2013, by Sacramento City Police officers who had stopped him while he was walking down a street. The search revealed 12 baggies in defendant’s coat pocket, each containing 0.10 to 0.20 grams of methamphetamine, and a bottle containing 51 morphine sulfate pills in his pants pocket. In 2013 sections 11379 and 11352 set forth various ways in which each section could be violated, including transporting, offering to transport, or attempting to transport either methamphetamine or morphine.4 While neither section defined what constituted

People v. Saldano CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C074444

RAUL ROBERTO SALDANO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MURRAY , J.

HULL , J.

AI Brief