P.

P. v. Russell CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 2013A134501California6,938 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bruiniers, J.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Russell was charged, by information, with possession of cocaine base for sale on January 12, 2011 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5; count one), possession of cocaine base

Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 for sale on March 18, 2011 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5; count two), and possession of hydrocodone for sale on March 18, 2011 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count three). The information also alleged that Russell was ineligible for probation (§§ 1203, subd. (e)(4), 1203.07, subd. (a)(11)) and subject to sentence enhancements because he had been convicted, on three prior occasions, for possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2) and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Russell entered a plea of “not guilty.” We need only briefly summarize the evidence presented at trial. Richmond Police Officer Joseph Pineda testified that, on January 12, 2011, at 1:42 p.m., he responded to a disturbance call. Pineda detained Russell to investigate the disturbance. As Russell was being patsearched, Pineda felt small rocks in Russell‟s front pocket. Pineda…

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.