People v. Saldano CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 2015C074444MCalifornia1,170 words

Opinion

Opinion

Discussion Defendant’s convictions in counts 1 through 4 arose from a search of his person conducted on January 29, 2013, by Sacramento City Police officers who had stopped him while he was walking down a street. The search revealed 12 baggies in defendant’s coat pocket, each containing 0.10 to 0.20 grams of methamphetamine, and a bottle containing 51 morphine sulfate pills in his pants pocket. In 2013 sections 11379 and 11352 set forth various ways in which each section could be violated, including transporting, offering to transport, or attempting to transport either methamphetamine or morphine.4 While neither section defined what constituted

2 The court also found defendant in violation of his probation in case No. 11F06951, and imposed a concurrent four-year term. No issue is raised in this appeal regarding case No. 11F06951. 3 This part of the trial court’s sentence was unauthorized. It is not possible to stay a sentence not imposed. “[If] a defendant suffers two convictions, punishment for one of which is precluded by [Penal Code] section 654, that section requires the sentence for one conviction to be imposed, and the other imposed and then stayed.” (People v. Deloza…

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.