Pierson

People v. Pierson

Good Law
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 817·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 75·2001 Daily Journal DAR 1227·86 Cal. App. 4th 983·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 972
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 2001C032401California3,585 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

Defendant Michael J. Pierson was convicted of two counts of manufacturing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)), and the jury found true the allegation that he committed the second offense while released on bail (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to eight years eight months in state prison. Defendant Patrick M. Dougherty was convicted by jury of manufacturing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)), and the trial court found true that he had a drug-related prior conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). He was sentenced to six years in prison.

Both defendants appeal. Pierson contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to move to excuse Juror No. 5, the father of a police officer who testified. We find no ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment as to Pierson.

Dougherty contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, as an instruction allowed the jury to convict based solely on his extraction of ephedrine. He also raises a claim regarding Juror No. 5. We agree that ephedrine, although a precursor to methamphetamine,…

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.