Espinoza

People v. Espinoza

Good Law
23 Cal. App. 5th 317·232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 14, 20182d Crim. No. B283895California2,219 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Yegan, J.

*319 Here we hold that Ident-A-Drug, an internet drug reference work, comes within the published compilation exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Evidence Code section 1340.

*648 Jose Antonio Espinoza appeals his conviction by jury of possession of a controlled substance (methadone and clonazepam pills) in a jail facility ( Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a) ) 1 and two counts of resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a))(1)). He admitted four prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and was sentenced to four years felony jail with mandatory supervision. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B).) Appellant unsuccessfully contends that Sanchez error ( People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 , 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 , 374 P.3d 320 ( Sanchez )) occurred when a criminalist testified that "Ident-A-Drug," an internet drug reference work, was used to presumptively identify the pills as controlled substances. We modify the judgment to reflect that three prior prison term enhancements were stricken at the sentencing hearing (§ 1385) and affirm the judgment as modified. (§ 1260.)

Facts and Procedural History

On October 21, 2015, appellant entered the Ventura County…

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.