People v. Taylor CA2/2

Filed 7/1/15 P. v. Taylor CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B255513

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA410508) v.

PRESTON TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carol H. Rehm, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Sheila Tuller Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged appellant Preston Taylor with one felony count of the sale, transportation, or offer to sell a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a).1 The information also alleged that appellant suffered three prior drug-related convictions (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)), one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12, subd. (b)), and four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5). A jury convicted appellant of the charged crime. The trial court found the prior conviction allegations to be true, and struck the prior strike conviction in the furtherance of justice. Appellant was sentenced to state prison for seven years, calculated as the midterm of four years, plus a consecutive term of three years pursuant to section 11370.2, subdivision (a). Appellant was awarded 706 days of presentence credit. Appellant contends, and the People agree, that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of his crime. While we also agree there was instructional error, we conclude that it was harmless. We find no error regarding appellant’s motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). The judgment is affirmed. FACTS On April 23, 2013, at approximately 8:50 p.m., Los Angeles Police Department Officer Gabriela Diaz was working undercover as a drug buyer at 6th Street and Gladys in Los Angeles. This area was known to the police as a “high narcotics area.” Officer Diaz was walking on 6th Street when appellant approached her and said, “Hey.” Officer Diaz said, “Hey, what’s up with you?” Appellant responded, “Nothing much, just chillin’.” Officer Diaz then asked appellant, “Hey, you got a dub?” She testified that a “dub” is street vernacular for $20 worth of narcotics. Appellant replied, “[Y]eah, but we got to go this way.” Officer Diaz followed appellant, who crossed the street and then asked her for money. Officer Diaz gave appellant a “prerecorded” $20