Becker

People v. Becker

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856·183 Cal. App. 4th 1151·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 513
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2010E047898California2,091 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Walter Becker was convicted of numerous offenses stemming from an assault he perpetrated against Pauline and Rudy Neitz in the Neitzes’ Rubidoux apartment on April 4, 2007. Following the incident, police apprehended defendant and found various drugs in his possession, including 10 tablets of the drug MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine), commonly known as Ecstasy.

As pertinent to this appeal, defendant was charged in count 5 with possession of “Ecstasy” for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and was convicted of the lesser included offense of simple possession of Ecstasy (§ 11377). Defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison, including eight months on count 5.

Defendant claims insufficient evidence supports his conviction for possession of Ecstasy because Ecstasy is neither a controlled substance nor an analog of any controlled substance for purposes of section 11377. He further argues he was deprived of his due process right to notice of the charge in count 5 because the information did not indicate he would be prosecuted based on the theory that Ecstasy is an analog of a controlled substance for purposes of section 11378 or 11377. We…

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.