People v. Quinones CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 2015E058882California8,521 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Louis John Quinones appeals from judgment entered following a jury

conviction for possessing heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). In a bifurcated

trial, the trial court also found true the enhancement allegations that defendant suffered a

prior conviction in 2004 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2); a prior prison term (Pen. Code,

§ 667.5, subd. (b))1; and a prior serious or violent felony conviction (§§ 667, subd.

(e)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years in state

prison.

Defendant contends his trial attorney committed ineffective assistance of counsel

(IAC) by (1) failing to object to expert opinion testimony on whether defendant

possessed heroin for sale; (2) stipulating to allowing the prosecution to search his two cell

phones and photograph text messages found on the phones; and (3) failing to object to the

prosecution introducing into evidence the California Law Enforcement

Telecommunication Systems (CLETS) report. In addition, defendant argues the trial

court committed prejudicial error by failing sua sponte to give the jury CALCRIM No.

225, and abused its discretion in denying defendant’s…

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.