Verduzco

People v. Verduzco

Good Law
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1166·210 Cal. App. 4th 1406
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 8, 2012No. B227825California4,883 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Johnson, J.

Defendant Ruben Verduzco was convicted of one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation *1410 of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 4), and one count of possession of an essential chemical sufficient to manufacture hydriodic acid or a reducing agent with intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11383.5, subdivision (e) (count 5). 1 He contends (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for possession of an essential chemical “sufficient to manufacture hydriodic acid or a reducing agent with intent to manufacture methamphetamine,” because he only possessed one of the chemicals necessary to make a reducing agent; (2) the court erred in instructing the jury by failing to define the meaning of a “reducing agent”; and (3) the court erred in imposing attorney fees without notice and a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8. We conclude that the statutory language requires possession of all constituents of a reducing agent, and reverse defendant’s conviction on count 5.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Shoestore and Search of Defendant’s House

Police…

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.