People v. Ward CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 19, 2021 No. F081906Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to establish prejudice resulting from her trial counsel's allegedly ineffective assistance in eliciting testimony regarding her prior drug sales, as the remaining evidence of her guilt was overwhelming.

Issues

Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by eliciting testimony that the defendant had previously engaged in narcotics sales.
Whether the defendant suffered prejudice from the admission of testimony regarding her prior narcotics sales.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The People contend that defendant failed to prove that she suffered any prejudice. We affirm.”

“Defendant therefore suffered no prejudice from her counsel eliciting testimony that she had sold methamphetamine on a prior occasion.”

“The evidence before the jury did not, as defendant contends, present a close case.”

Filed 10/19/21 P. v. Ward 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081906 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF174473A) v.

BRANDY LEE WARD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Thomas S. Clark, Judge. Lindsey K. Terry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Catherine Tennant Nieto, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Brandy Lee Ward stands convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale. On appeal, she contends her trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting harmful testimony at trial. The People contend that defendant failed to prove that she suffered any prejudice. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 13, 2019, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 1). The information further alleged that defendant had served five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).1 On August 24, 2020, a jury found defendant guilty on count 1. On September 30, 2020, the trial court sentenced defendant to a split sentence of three years (the upper term) pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). Specifically, the court ordered defendant to serve one year four months in county jail and one year eight months on mandatory supervision. On October 8, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal. FACTUAL SUMMARY People’s Case At about 2:30 p.m., on October 29, 2018, Kern County Sheriff’s Deputies James Money, David Manriquez, and Dizander Guerrero, along with other deputies, arrived at a residence in Oildale to execute a search warrant. Defendant’s name was on mail in the mailbox and she was present in the residence. Once the deputies entered defendant’s residence, she led Manriquez to her purse where he discovered two “clear plastic baggie[s],” one containing 0.2 grams of methamphetamine and the other containing 24 grams of methamphetamine. Manriquez and Guerrero believed the substance in the

People v. Ward CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief