People v. Bunner CA4/3

Filed 12/7/22 P. v. Bunner CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060688

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CF2542)

JERROD LEE BUNNER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jacki C. Brown, Judge. Reversed. Matthew T. Tymann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Friedman and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jerrod Lee Bunner appeals from a judgment after the jury convicted him of possessing controlled substances for sale. Bunner argues the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to amend the information and for the trial to proceed in his absence. Because we agree the court erred by allowing the trial to proceed in Bunner’s absence and he was prejudiced, we need not address his other claim. We reverse the judgment. FACTS Late one evening, officers reported to a shopping center parking lot because a man was passed out in a parked car. Officer Patrick Marshall saw Bunner unconscious in the driver’s seat slumped toward the steering wheel. Officers shined lights into the car and knocked on the window. Bunner slowly woke up, but he was sluggish and slow to respond. Marshall believed Bunner was under the influence of an opioid. An officer took Bunner out of the car, and Marshall found a blue toiletry bag on the front passenger seat. The toiletry bag had plastic baggies that contained powdery and crystalline substances. Marshall believed it was cocaine and methamphetamine. He did not believe it was fentanyl because it was not prevalent at the time. Officers found a pay-owe sheet, a scale, two cell phones, plastic baggies, aluminum foil, over $2,483 in cash, and pills. Marshall believed the drugs were for sale. A complaint and an amended complaint charged Bunner with possessing for sale heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine and other offenses and allegations not relevant here. At the preliminary hearing, Marshall testified he believed the substances were heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. The parties stipulated to the same for purposes of the preliminary hearing. The trial court held Bunner to answer on all charges. An information charged Bunner with possessing for sale heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. After the preliminary hearing, a forensic scientist tested the substances and determined they were fentanyl and methamphetamine. The prosecution filed an amended information charging Bunner with possessing for sale fentanyl and methamphetamine.