People v. Williams CA1/5

Filed 3/8/16 P. v. Williams CA1/5 Reposted to provide correct filed date

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143202 v. EDWARD MORRIS WILLIAMS, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-140960-6) Defendant and Appellant.

Edward Morris Williams appeals from an order of probation imposed after a jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine base and Dihydrocodeinone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). Morris contends: (1) this court should examine the sealed record made in connection with his motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion; and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal (Pen. Code, § 1118.1).1 We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Williams was charged by information with possession of cocaine base and Dihydrocodeinone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); counts one & two respectively). The information further alleged Williams had a prior felony conviction, which was alleged as an enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and later dismissed.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Prosecution’s Evidence On August 4, 2012, around 6:30 a.m., Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputy William Root responded to a domestic disturbance call in El Sobrante. In connection with that call, Root detained Williams and found a plastic sandwich bag containing loose pills in Williams’s back pocket. After Williams was transported to jail, Root discovered that the bag contained another smaller bag. Inside the smaller bag, which had a knot tied in the plastic, Root found 13 yellow pills and 15 pills of a lighter yellow color. He also found eight large, off-white rocks, along with numerous smaller rocks. Root performed a “presumptive” test, which indicated the rocks contained cocaine. A criminalist with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department (Department) tested and analyzed the contents of the bags. She concluded that the off-white rocks were 1.123 grams of cocaine base, which was a usable amount. She also determined both the yellow and off-yellow pills contained Dihydrocodeinone, also known as Hydrocodone, in usable amounts. Defense and Rebuttal Evidence The defense introduced Williams’s medical records, which included a prescription for Norco—a brand name drug containing five milligrams of Hydrocodone bitartrate and 325 milligrams of acetaminophen. In rebuttal, the People’s narcotics and pharmacology expert, Walnut Creek Police Detective William Jeha, testified that manufacturers use shape, color, numbering, and lettering to distinguish among different medication strengths. Jeha identified both the yellow and off-yellow pills as Hydrocodone bitartrate, a generic form of Norco, in a dosage of 10 milligrams. The medication was identical, except made by different manufacturers. Williams’s prescription did not correspond to the pills found in his possession, as they contained double the prescribed dose of Hydrocodone. Verdict and Sentence The jury convicted Williams on both counts. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and Williams was ordered to serve a two-year term of probation under Proposition 36 (§ 1210.1). Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.