Eastman

People v. Eastman

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 4th 668·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 608·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 137·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1124
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1993E010412California4,232 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dabney, J.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Mark Allen Eastman of transportation of a controlled substance—in this case, methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on a charge of possessing the methamphetamine for sale. (§ 11378.) Appellant was placed on probation and ordered to serve 210 days in the county jail, with credit for 18 days served.

On appeal, Eastman asserts that the jury was incorrectly instructed concerning tiie meaning of the word “transportation,” as used in section 11379, in that the term must be construed to imply an intent, at the end of the transportation, to transfer possession. He also asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support the finding that he personally possessed and transported the contraband. Finally, he argues that he should be credited with an appropriate amount of presentence conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code section 4019, subdivision (a)(2). We agree with the last contention, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

Statement of Facts

Deputy Timothy Smith stopped appellant for speeding about 12:30 a.m. Appellant was the only occupant of the vehicle, a late model red…

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.