People v. Adib CA3

DISCUSSION

I Sufficiency Of The Evidence Defendant contends the People “failed to present sufficient evidence that MDMA is an analog of MDA.” We disagree. “The Health and Safety Code lists the various substances it controls in five extensive schedules. (§§ 11054–11058.) The listings include ‘official, common, usual, chemical, [and] trade name[s].’ (§ 11053.) The code also regulates ‘analogs’ of listed controlled substances (analogs) . . . .” (People v. Davis (2013) 57 Cal.4th 353, 358.) “Section 11054 sets out Schedule I substances. It identifies ‘3,4–methylenedioxy amphetamine’ (MDA) as a controlled substance. (§ 11054, subd. (d)(6).) It further defines as a controlled substance ‘any material, compound, mixture, or preparation’ containing ‘any quantity’ of any listed hallucinogenic substances, including MDA, or any ‘salts, isomers, and salts of isomers’ of such substances. (§ 11054, subd. (d).) [¶] In 1988, the Legislature added chapter 6.5 to the code to regulate analogs. (Stats. 1988, ch. 712, § 4, p. 2364.) It found that controlled substance laws were being circumvented by the use of analogs which ‘have, are represented to have, or are intended to have effects on the central…