People v. Garza CA5

Filed 9/24/15 P. v. Garza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F068580 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. MCR047120, v. MCF030753A, MCR046462)

JOSE GARZA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Joseph A. Soldani, Judge. Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

INTRODUCTION Following a jury trial, appellant Jose Garza was convicted of felony unlawful possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), count 1), and misdemeanor unlawful possession of paraphernalia used for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, count 2). Appellant was sentenced to county jail for an aggregate term of four years and four months, with credit for time served.1 In addition, he was sentenced to 30 days in custody with 30 days credit for time served for count 2. On appeal, appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he possessed a usable quantity of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS Prosecution Case-in-Chief On September 3, 2013, at approximately 2:20 a.m., Officer William Spears from the Madera Police Department observed appellant riding his bicycle without lights in violation of the Vehicle Code. Based on his observation, Office Spears initiated a traffic stop. As appellant got off his bicycle, Officer Spears noticed a bulge in appellant’s pocket. He asked appellant what the bulge was and appellant responded that it was a knife. Officer Spears asked appellant if he could search him and appellant consented. Although the bulge was not a knife, Officer Spears continued searching appellant based on his response. In the upper chest pocket of appellant’s leather vest, Officer Spears discovered a glass pipe wrapped inside of a sock, there was an off-white cake-like substance inside the