Barasa

People v. Barasa

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 4th 287·126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 628·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4889·2002 Daily Journal DAR 12511·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10791
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 30, 2002D038830California3,723 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Daniel Barasa was convicted by pleas of guilty of one instance of possession for sale and one instance of transporting of a controlled substance. Barasa appeals, arguing that with respect to the transportation conviction, Penal Code section 1210.1, enacted by Proposition 36 in 2001 (Prop. 36, § 5, eff. July 1, 2001, approved Nov. 7, 2000), which mandates probation in cases involving drug possession for personal use, should be extended to him as to the transportation conviction. We disagree that the statute in question is applicable to Barasa’s conduct, and affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Case No. SCD 152045—Possession of Cocaine for Sale

On April 1, 2000, just before 9:00 p.m., police in Montezuma Park and three male persons were walking towards each other in the park when the police observed Barasa throw an object upon the ground. The object was a bindle of cocaine rocks weighing 8.5 grams. Barasa (who was also in possession of a small amount of marijuana, for which he was not charged) admitted he had been selling cocaine to support himself, but wanted to reform and “do the right thing.” Despite having incurred this offense while on probation…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.