People v. Bustamante CA2/6

Filed 8/26/15 P. v. Bustamante CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B258313 (Super. Ct. No. 2014005362) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

RONALD RENE BUSTAMANTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ronald Rene Bustamante appeals a judgment following his conviction of possession of a controlled substance--methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and resisting, obstructing and delaying a peace officer (Pen. Code, §148, subd. (a)(1)). We conclude, among other things, that 1) substantial evidence supports the finding that Bustamante knowingly possessed a usable amount of methamphetamine, and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the People's motion to exclude evidence about the purity and effect of the controlled substance. We affirm. FACTS On the afternoon of February 19, 2014, Police Officers Brandon Ordelheide and Garrett Knowles were on patrol. They received a radio dispatch call that a "suspicious" person had knocked "on the front door to a residence and [was] pacing back and forth in front of the residence."

Ordelheide drove down an alley and spotted Bustamante in a "trash container area." He got out of the patrol car and tried to speak to Bustamante. Bustamante ignored him and placed his hands inside a trash can. Ordelheide called for "backup." Ordelheide and Knowles approached Bustamante, and Bustamante walked towards the officers with a glass bottle in his hand. He continued to walk towards the officers despite being ordered to stop. Ordelheide then "screamed at him to stop and get down on the ground." Bustamante complied, but he then resisted the officers' attempt to place him in handcuffs. He continued to resist, until Ordelheide warned him that "he would be tased at which point he stopped" and was handcuffed. Knowles searched Bustamante and "removed a syringe from his left pocket." Ordelheide testified that "[t]he tip of the syringe appeared to be ground[ed] off so there was no needle and no cap." He believed the substance in the syringe was methamphetamine. Ordelheide testified "the amount of liquid in the syringe [was] a usable quantity," and was consistent with the amount drug users inject "in their body." Maria Perez, a sheriff's department "forensic scientist," testified that she tested the liquid in the syringe and it "contained methamphetamine." Knowles testified that Bustamante had "recent track marks" on his body. Bustamante did not testify and he called no witnesses. DISCUSSION Substantial Evidence Bustamante contends there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that he knowingly possessed a usable quantity of methamphetamine. We disagree. In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, we must draw all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the judgment. We do not weigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the testimony. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.) We do not decide the credibility of the witnesses. These are matters exclusively within the domain of the trier of fact. (Ibid.; People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296-297.)