People v. Renaud CA3

Filed 3/14/16 P. v. Renaud CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076777

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13CR21138)

v.

TIMMY RENAUD,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant, Timmy Renaud, guilty of cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11358). On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the defense of cooperative cultivation. We affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

BACKGROUND Amador County narcotics enforcement officers conducted a warrant search of a secluded and supposedly vacant lot in Sutter Creek. Neighbors had reported hearing generators running at all hours and other suspicious activity. At the site, the officers found a marijuana growing operation with a 22-foot trailer, a generator-powered water pump, a greenhouse with 15 marijuana plants, and around 40 plants drying under black plastic. The growing plants were estimated to eventually yield about a pound of processed marijuana each. The drying plants were conservatively estimated to yield a total of 35 pounds of processed marijuana. The officers also found four gallon-sized bags of processed marijuana, a pay/owe ledger, hundreds of plastic baggies of various sizes, and a folder with “dozens and dozens and dozens” of valid Proposition 215 recommendations. The officers found three people at the site: defendant, a woman named Ashley, and her boyfriend. The property’s owner (who was away) lived out-of-town and had agreed to let them grow there. The property owner, Ashley, and defendant all had Proposition 215 recommendation cards, and the property owner had told Ashley he had a grower’s license.2 The owner had provided the many 215 recommendations, which were for patients of his “cooperative type clinic.” Defendant told the officers that he was growing the marijuana for personal consumption. He said his recommendation allowed him to have 10 pounds of marijuana. When the officers challenged him on whether he could consume that much, defendant said, “I smoke it with my buddies” and said he gives away the extra to his buddies. He denied selling marijuana to collectives: “No. I’m growing it for myself.”