People v. Salinas CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 15, 2015 No. F068628Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not violate Penal Code section 654 by imposing consecutive sentences for transportation of methamphetamine and bringing a controlled substance into a jail, as the offenses involved separate objectives and were divisible in time.

Issues

Whether the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by imposing multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to object to consecutive sentencing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court could reasonably have found from these circumstances that Salinas had different objectives when he transported the methamphetamine, i.e., that his objective when he transported the methamphetamine in the car was to sell it; whereas, his objective in transporting it into the jail was to prevent the officers from discovering it.”

“Since the record supports the imposition of a consecutive term on count 2, even if defense counsel had objected, it is unlikely the court would have imposed a concurrent term on this count.”

Filed 7/15/15 P. v. Salinas CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068628 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF150094A) v.

LIBRADO JUNIOR SALINAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John W. Lua, Judge. William I. Parks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna, Leanne LeMon and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

A jury convicted appellant, Librado Junior Salinas, of transportation of methamphetamine (count 1/Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), bringing a controlled substance into jail (count 2/Pen. Code, § 4573),1 possession for sale of methamphetamine (count 3/Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and resisting arrest (count 4/§148, subd. (a)(1)). In a separate proceeding, the court found true a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), two prior conviction enhancements (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)), and allegations that Salinas had two prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). On appeal, Salinas contends: 1) his sentence violates section 654; 2) the court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences; and 3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during sentencing. We affirm. FACTS On August 3, 2013, at approximately 4:45 a.m., Bakersfield Police Officer Jeff Martin stopped a car driven by Salinas because some of the car’s lighting equipment was not working properly. During a patdown search of Salinas, Officer Martin found $353. Officer Francisco Esguerra responded to the scene and searched a backpack that was in the car. The backpack contained mail and a receipt with Salinas’s name, 20 plastic sandwich baggies, a digital scale, several batteries that fit the scale, a laptop computer, and other electronics. Salinas admitted the backpack belonged to him. Salinas was arrested and transported to the county jail. Prior to being taken into the jail to be booked, Officer Esguerra asked Salinas if he was in possession of any contraband and Salinas responded that he was not. Officer Esguerra warned Salinas he would face additional charges if found to be in possession of contraband in the jail and Salinas again replied that he did not possess any contraband. Salinas was then escorted into the jail to be booked.

People v. Salinas CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief