People v. Crawford CA5

Filed 6/22/21 P. v. Crawford CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F081019 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF014810A) v.

BRODERICK CRAWFORD, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge. Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A. Martinez and Jennifer Oleksa, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2016, the voters adopted Proposition 64, which (with certain limitations) legalized possession of “not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis” by persons 21 years of age or older. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a)(1);1 People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885, 888 (Perry).) In 2020, appellant Broderick Crawford, Jr. pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana while incarcerated in prison in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, subdivision (a).2 He received a prison sentence of four years. Appellant contends his conviction should be vacated because he had the right to possess the marijuana, even in prison. California Courts of Appeal are split on this issue. (Compare Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 885 [Proposition 64 did not decriminalize possession of cannabis in prison] with People v. Raybon (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 111 (Raybon) [Proposition 64 decriminalized possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in prison], review granted Aug. 21, 2019, S256978.)3 Appellant contends we should follow Raybon and vacate his conviction. We disagree and affirm. DISCUSSION Appellant relies on Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at page 113, review granted, to establish Proposition 64 modified Penal Code section 4573.6 so possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in prison is no longer criminal. The People contend Proposition

1 All future statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted. 2 The amount of the possessed marijuana was not established below. At the change of plea hearing, the parties stipulated a factual basis existed for the plea. According to the criminal complaint, appellant possessed marijuana while incarcerated. 3 In granting review of Raybon, the Supreme Court stated it would decide the following issue: “Did Proposition 64 [the ‘Adult Use of Marijuana Act’] decriminalize the possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana by adults 21 years of age or older who are in state prison as well as those not in prison?”