People v. Magana CA4/1

Filed 11/3/20 P. v. Magana CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D075886

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD262083)

EDWIN EDMUNDO MAGANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed.

Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION After law enforcement recovered large amounts of liquid and solid methamphetamines and several firearms from Edwin Edmundo Magana’s property in Los Angeles County, they arrested and charged him in San Diego County. When Magana challenged venue, the People argued the drugs recovered at Magana’s home had entered the United States through a port in San Diego and traveled the length of San Diego County before arriving in Los Angeles, creating a nexus with San Diego County. The superior court agreed. The case eventually went to trial in San Diego, and Magana was convicted. Magana appeals his conviction, arguing that venue in San Diego County was improper. We conclude there was some evidence to support the superior court’s determination, and we will affirm. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FACTS In 2011 and 2012, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was targeting a “cell” of drug traffickers. Within this cell, the DEA had identified Armando Gomez as an individual who received drugs in Tijuana, packaged them, placed them in cars, and directed their transport across the United States border. The DEA had also identified Martin Bucio and Frederico Perez Ramirez as participants who received drug loads from Gomez in the United States. To track these individuals, the DEA used wire taps. In one phone call on May 15, 2012, Gomez told Bucio where the drugs were in San Diego and when he could expect to receive the load. DEA Agent Holley testified: “Basically[, Gomez] was telling [Bucio], hey, this is where it’s at, San Diego. It will be to you by whatever time.” In other intercepted phone calls on May 18 and May 21, Gomez updated Ramirez about when to expect the drug loads heading to him. On May 22, the DEA intercepted calls involving Gomez that