State of Cal. v. Stabile CA2/6

Filed 8/31/20 State of Cal. v. Stabile CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 2d Crim. No. B301511 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2018- Plaintiff and Respondent, 00510522-CU-AF-VTA) (Ventura County) v. JANICE STABILE, Defendant and Appellant.

Janice Stabile, a convicted marijuana dealer, appeals from the judgment entered in a forfeiture proceeding. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11470 et seq.)1 The trial court found that $126,630 hidden in appellant’s socks was traceable to unlawful drug sales. We affirm. Section 11470, subdivision (f) provides for the forfeiture of money used for and traceable to the sale of controlled substances. (See People v. $400 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1617–1618.)

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

Facts and Procedural History In 2018, appellant was cited for operating an unlicensed marijuana dispensary (Canna Nuts). After appellant tried to bribe the code enforcement officer, the Ventura Police Department made controlled buys and executed a search warrant, recovering among other things, $129,072 cash in socks, hidden inside a suitcase. Appellant admitted the cash was hers and that she was “‘fly[ing] under the radar’” by operating an unlicensed marijuana dispensary. In February 2019, a jury convicted appellant of maintaining a place for selling a controlled substance (§ 11366), possession for sale of a controlled substance (§ 11359, subd. (b)), and giving away or transporting, or offering to give away or transport a controlled substance (§ 11360, subd. (b)). Meanwhile, the Ventura County District Attorney filed a petition for forfeiture (§ 11470, subd. (f)), alleging that the cash was used to facilitate, furnish in exchange for, or was related to the sale of controlled substances. Appellant claimed the $129,072 was income received from her debt collection business (The Lotus Agency) during the 2012 through 2015 tax years. Appellant, however, admitted that she never received cash in the debt collection business. All the money from the business came in through checks or credit card payments. Appellant’s tax returns showed that her net business income between 2012 and 2015 totaled $54,045 and that she kept nominal amounts in the bank accounts. The trial court found that $126,630 seized in cash met the criteria for forfeiture as described in section 11470, subdivision (b) and ordered the money forfeited pursuant to section 11489.