People v. Carrisosa CA5

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted David Joseph Carrisosa, Jr. (defendant) of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11378, count 1), sale or transportation of a controlled substance (§ 11379, subd. (a), count 2), and misdemeanor possession of a smoking device (§ 11364, subd. (a), count 3). Following a court trial, the trial court also found true an allegation defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction and an aggravating factor allegation. On appeal, defendant argues counts 1 and 2 must be reversed because his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to a prosecution witness’s opinion testimony that defendant was involved in narcotics transportation and distribution. Defendant contends the officer’s opinion was inadmissible because it impermissibly addressed a question of law, usurped the jury’s function as the trier of fact, and it directly addressed the issue of defendant’s guilt. The People respond that defense counsel was not deficient in failing to object to such testimony. Alternatively, they argue defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with…