People v. Adib CA3

Filed 8/8/16 P. v. Adib CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C077338/C077149

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CM040896/CM034671) v.

PARHAM ADIB,

Defendant and Appellant.

Found guilty of possessing a controlled substance for sale, defendant Parham Adib appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, the lack of a unanimity instruction, and the admission of what he claims was irrelevant evidence. Finding no merit in any of his arguments, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2011, after being stopped by Chico police, defendant was found to have 16 bindles of a crystalline substance in his jacket pocket. The substance turned out to be MDMA. He was charged with and convicted of possessing a controlled substance for

1

purpose of sale. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence on that conviction and placed defendant on three years’ probation. Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION I Sufficiency Of The Evidence Defendant contends the People “failed to present sufficient evidence that MDMA is an analog of MDA.” We disagree. “The Health and Safety Code lists the various substances it controls in five extensive schedules. (§§ 11054–11058.) The listings include ‘official, common, usual, chemical, [and] trade name[s].’ (§ 11053.) The code also regulates ‘analogs’ of listed controlled substances (analogs) . . . .” (People v. Davis (2013) 57 Cal.4th 353, 358.) “Section 11054 sets out Schedule I substances. It identifies ‘3,4–methylenedioxy amphetamine’ (MDA) as a controlled substance. (§ 11054, subd. (d)(6).) It further defines as a controlled substance ‘any material, compound, mixture, or preparation’ containing ‘any quantity’ of any listed hallucinogenic substances, including MDA, or any ‘salts, isomers, and salts of isomers’ of such substances. (§ 11054, subd. (d).) [¶] In 1988, the Legislature added chapter 6.5 to the code to regulate analogs. (Stats. 1988, ch. 712, § 4, p. 2364.) It found that controlled substance laws were being circumvented by the use of analogs which ‘have, are represented to have, or are intended to have effects on the central nervous system which are substantially similar to, or greater than, the controlled substances classified in Sections 11054 and 11055 . . . . These analogs present grave dangers to the health and safety of the people of this state. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that a controlled substance analog . . . be considered identical, for purposes of the penalties and punishment . . . to the controlled substance in Section 11054 or 11055 of which it is an analog.’ (§ 11400.) [¶] An analog is defined as a substance that: (1) has a substantially similar chemical structure as the controlled substance, or (2) has, is represented as having, or is intended to have a substantially