P. v. Brown
Filed 1/13/10 P. v. Brown CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Lassen)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES LEE BROWN III, Defendant and Appellant. | C056510 (Super. Ct. No. CR024002) |
Defendant James Lee Brown III appeals from his conviction for selling methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a).) On appeal, he contends the trial court engaged in judicial misconduct by coercing the jury, the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct in closing argument, the court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to a midterm sentence, the court made its sentencing choice to punish defendants decision to go to trial, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected to delineate the specific fines and fees imposed. As to this last point, we agree. We otherwise affirm the judgment.
Facts and Proceedings
Between May and August 2006, at the invitation of the tribe, a law enforcement task force conducted an ongoing undercover drug buy program at a tribal casino near Susanville. Agent Lucy Villones was part of the task force. In her role, Villones would go to the casino and pose as a patron. She would generally sit next to other casino patrons and engage them in small talk. Sometimes she was directed by Marvin Clark, a local officer experienced in recognizing local drug dealers, to target specific people. Eventually she would ask the target if they knew where she could get a little something. Consistent with the approach of drug users and dealers, Villones avoided naming a specific drug in these conversations.
Villones was working at the casino on August 11, 2006 and August 12, 2006. She was wearing hidden video and audio monitoring equipment. Parole agent Clark was monitoring the interactions on the casino video surveillance system. At about 2:00 a.m., Villones starting talking with Lisa Nunes, a target. Villones had known Nunes for about one month and had previously purchased narcotics from her. Villones asked Nunes if she could get me something today? Nunes replied she knew where to get something. Villones followed her and Nunes made a phone call. Nunes reported, My friends got company, so we cant do anything now. Villones told Nunes she would be around if Nunes could find something for her and Nunes walked away.
A few minutes later, Nunes returned to Villones with defendant. Villones had met defendant earlier in the buy program, and been directed to speak with him by Clark. On those earlier occasions, she had asked him if he knew where she could get something to party with and he said No. He appeared unapproachable. This time, defendant asked Villones what she wanted and she answered, Whatever you can get maybe a gram. He asked her to go to an apartment and she told him she could not leave the casino. Defendant explained he needed to leave the casino, because he did not want to do anything on the reservation and possibly lose his gambling privileges. Defendant walked away, made a cell phone call and motioned for Nunes to join him. Nunes joined defendant, and in a few minutes Nunes returned to Villones and told her the cost would be $80. Nunes also assured Villones that the quality of defendants drugs would be superior to the other drug dealers. Nunes told Villones they had to walk to the store at the gas station to get the drugs and Villones reiterated she would not leave the casino. Nunes agreed to handle the transaction for Villones, for a payment of $1.00. Villones gave Nunes the money and Nunes and defendant left the casino together.
Defendant and Nunes went to a mini-mart near the gas station. A red car drove up and defendant went up to the car and spoke with the passenger, James Mayberry. Defendant and Mayberry went into the store together. Then, shortly thereafter Mayberry left the store alone, got back in the car and left the gas station. Defendant and Nunes then left the store and walked back to the casino. On the way, defendant handed Nunes something which she put in her pocket.
About 15 minutes after they had left the casino, Nunes and defendant returned. Defendant walked past Villones and Nunes delivered 0.5 grams of methamphetamine to Villones.
Defendant was later arrested and interviewed by Officer Martin. Officer Martin asked defendant if he remembered participating in a drug sale with Nunes. Defendant replied, I know she come up to--[Nunes] come up saying, Could you hook, could you hook a friend up? Martin then asked defendant if, when he and Nunes went to the mini-mart, a red car had pulled in, offloaded the dope to him which he then handed to Nunes to make the deal with Villones. Defendant answered, I think thats the way, I guess. I just give it to--whats her name? . . . She asked me and I gave it to her. I dont remember the rest of it. I dont know if I went back into the casino at that point.
Defendant and Mayberry testified that defendant wanted Mayberry to meet a girl. Mayberrys roommate, Jeremy Hughes, agreed to drive Mayberry to the casino in his red car. On his way to meet the girl, Mayberry stopped at the convenience store to buy cigarettes. They ran into defendant at the store and defendant told Mayberry the girl was in the store. They went in the store together and Mayberry bought cigarettes. Mayberry did not meet the girl because she was in the bathroom, but told defendant to give her his phone number. He wrote the number down and handed it to defendant. Defendant handed that number to Nunes on their walk back to the casino. Defendant believed Nunes had drugs on her, but denied that he had received any drugs or given Nunes any drugs. He remembered speaking with Villones and her referencing $80, but he walked away, not knowing what she was talking about.
Nunes had previously gotten drugs from defendant. That night, she asked defendant if he could procure $50 of methamphetamine and he said he could. The two went to the gas station, defendant met with someone, got methamphetamine and gave it to her. He did not try to introduce her to a man.
Defendant was charged with, and a jury found him guilty of, one count of selling methamphetamine. Defendant was sentenced to the midterm of three years in state prison.
I
Court Misconduct
Defendant contends the trial court committed judicial misconduct when it stated that argument, instructions and deliberations could begin and end after 5:00 p.m. on the second day of trial, gave a limited break, and made the jury skip dinner to accommodate this schedule. Noting the absence of an objection to the evening session, defendant also argues an objection would have been futile and counsels failure to object rendered his assistance ineffective.
The presentation of evidence concluded shortly before 4:50 p.m. after a single day of trial testimony. At that time, the court called the jury in and said, Folks, let me chat with you for a minute. There are two things we can do. What we have left is for me to instruct you on the law. Then the lawyers make their statements and argument to you and you go to deliberate. Im more than happy to go ahead here and have the early evening to do that. If its agreeable with you, if [it] wouldnt cause some great problem for one of you folks. Anyway does anybody have [a] real strong problem just going ahead and seeing if we can conclude today? I see nobody is saying that. Yes sir?
One of the jurors asked if there could be a little recess. The court said, You bet? The juror asked if it could be long enough to allow time to get to Johnstonville and back? The court clarified, Twenty minutes? The juror indicated that 20 minutes was all I ask. The court replied, At this hour thats a long time. Is there something you can be taken care of by phone call? The juror answered, No. Thats all right. I will live. I will live. The court said, Okay. The juror added, Im not going to be the party pooper. The court finished, Okay. Well, thats good. Im going to take a recess right now. Well take a ten-minute recess. Please keep the admonition in mind. . . . Well be in recess about ten minutes. When we come back I will give you the bulk of the instruction on the law. The attorneys will make their arguments to you. I will give the concluding instructions and you will retire to deliberate.
Neither party objected to having the session continue past 5:00 p.m. Neither party objected to the courts specific comments. Neither party requested a dinner break or discussion regarding a dinner break. The jury reconvened at 5:10 p.m. Following instruction and argument, the jury began deliberations at 6:10 p.m. and reached its verdict at 7:00 p.m.
Defendant contends this discussion by the court constituted misconduct in that it coerced the jury into reaching a verdict and unmistakably signaled the courts belief that deliberations would be brief, a signal which, in light of the nature of the evidence, demonstrated the courts belief that defendant was guilty. There was no objection at the trial level to the courts offer to allow the jury to begin deliberations in the early evening or to the courts comments to the effect that they could see if the trial might be concluded that day. As such, the contention is forfeited. (People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1038; People v. Anderson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 453, 469.)
In anticipation of that conclusion, defendant contends in the alternative that an objection would have been futile or counsel was ineffective for failure to object. We are not persuaded as to either contention.
There is nothing in the record which suggests an objection would have been futile. There is nothing to suggest the court had predetermined a course of action and would not have fairly considered an objection. In fact, given the discussion with the juror that is on the record, the suggestion is to the contrary. The court left the choice of whether to proceed with the jury. The court considered the request of a juror for a 20-minute break before beginning deliberations and concluded that, at that late hour, that would be too long of a break. Further, the courts comments to the jury were not so suggestive or coercive that an admonition would not have cured any potential harm. We cannot find that a timely objection would have been futile.
Nor can we find that counsels performance was ineffective. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his counsels representation fell below the standard of a competent advocate and a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsels errors, the result would have been different. (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218 (Ledesma).) A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 333.) In determining whether counsels performance was deficient, we exercise deferential scrutiny and assess the reasonableness of counsels acts or omissions . . . under the circumstances as they stood at the time that counsel acted or failed to act. (Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 216.) We presume that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 389.) Our review is limited to the record on appeal and we must reject a claim of ineffective assistance if the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged unless (1) counsel was asked for and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or (2) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. (People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 880.)
Counsels failure to object to extending the trial day or to the comments the judge made to the jury did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The court made no comment on the evidence or the witnesses. The court ultimately put the matter in the jurors hands, asking if it was agreeable for them to stay. The comments did not put any time pressure on the jury, did not suggest the case was simple and would require only brief deliberation, and did not imply that the case only warranted desultory deliberation. (People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 632; People v. Anderson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 469; People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 534.) The court did nothing more than to afford the jury the opportunity, if the jury wanted it, to see if it could conclude the trial that day.
Because there was no misconduct, there was nothing for defense counsel to properly object to. Accordingly, defendant cannot meet the first prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel, that counsels performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 440.)
II
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Defendant next contends the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument by asserting defendant had withheld material evidence, expressing a personal belief in defendants guilt, and implying additional evidence of guilt existed, but was not presented at trial. Again recognizing the lack of objection to any portion of closing argument, defendant contends this was ineffective assistance of counsel. Again, we are not persuaded.
The applicable federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well settled. A prosecutor's rude and intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. [Citations.] But conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury. [Citations.] (People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1214-1215.)
Defendant objects to two specific portions of the prosecutions closing argument. At no point was any objection raised to these arguments. As defendant notes, [a] defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion, and on the same ground, the defendant objected to the action and also requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the perceived impropriety. [Citation.] (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 966.) The lack of objection has forfeited this issue.
Again anticipating this conclusion, defendant goes on to contend that the failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We cannot agree. The standards for evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel are delineated above. In short, defendant must establish both that counsels performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that such deficient performance also resulted in prejudice to defendant. Defendant does not meet this burden.
The prosecutor argued regarding the testimony relating to Jeremy Hughes, the person defendant and Mayberry named as the driver of the red car at the convenience store. In the context of stating that his view was not the exclusive view of the evidence, the prosecutor argued: This is my view on some of the evidence, what I think some of the evidence showed. Again, why does a guy go to meet somebody because he just writes his number down and leaves? Its interesting that just about every piece of the evidence corroborated by defendant has a different interpretation for filling in the blanks. Not until its proved to the contrary. Hey, what about this Jeremy Hughes guy? Hey, Im not the only lawyer in this courtroom with subpoena power. Defendant knows him. Defendant knows where hes at. He was sitting in that car. He had an opportunity to come corroborate what Mr. Mayberry and [defendant] said. Where is he at? Thats fair game. [] I know its my obligation to prove this charge. Its the District Attorneys obligation to prove this charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Didnt know who he was until we got here to court today. We never knew where the car was until recently.
Defendant contends the above was improper argument because it implied defendant had purposely decided not to exercise his subpoena power to call Hughes, which implied that defendant was withholding evidence, when it was not even shown that Hughes was available to testify.
It is well-settled that [c]omment on the failure to call a logical witness is proper. (People v. Ford(1988)45 Cal.3d 431, 449; People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 34; People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 475.) (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 539.) Defendants reliance on People v. Frohner (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 94, 108-109 is misplaced. In Frohner, the prosecution was aware that the witness was unavailable. It was in that specific context that the court found the prosecutors comments on the failure to call the witness was misconduct.
Unlike Frohner, in this case, there was no showing that Hughes could not be located or was otherwise unavailable. When, as here, the defendant has taken the stand . . . and offered [a] . . . defense in which he identifies other persons who could support his testimony, and those witnesses are available and subject to subpoena, there should be no question but that comment is appropriate and permissible. (People v. Ford, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 447; see also People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1216, fn. 9.) It was not the prosecutors duty to determine Hughess availability before he could make the argument. Because the prosecutors comments relating to the failure of defendant to call Hughes were proper comment on the evidence, counsels failure to object was not deficient performance and cannot have resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defendant also contends the prosecutor committed misconduct in that he improperly stated his belief that defendant was guilty based on evidence not presented at trial.
During trial, defendant and Mayberry had explained the meeting at the mini mart as defendant simply trying to get Mayberry and Nunes together, romantically. Mayberry expressly denied ever using methamphetamine and denied bringing methamphetamine to the mini-mart.
In closing argument, the prosecutor was reviewing the evidence relating to defendants and Mayberrys testimony and the events at the mini-mart. The prosecutor was raising inferences regarding the relative credibility and motives of the testifying witnesses, including defendant, and the likelihood of defendants version of events. In that context, he stated And if anybodys under the illusion Im not thinking James Mayberry is selling dope, theyd be wrong. Let it be heard here. He then continued discussing the testimony and relative credibility of the witnesses, such as Nunes, the officers, defendant, and the information reflected on the tapes.
Defendant complains this argument was improper because the prosecutor did not qualify his statement that Mayberry was selling dope by suggesting that Mayberry alone was involved in the sale. Considering the circumstances of the alleged sale, the only inference to draw was that [the] District Attorney also believed defendant was guilty of selling dope.
The prosecutor then finished his closing argument saying, You know, [defense counsel] talked about this in jury selection. We have different roles. He has an obligation. He protects the interests of his client. His job is to single people out in the world, look at loopholes to get their client off. [] But the District Attorneys job is different in the sense that I dont do everything I can do to convict. Our job is to seek justice. We put out the facts, the truth, let it fall where it may. Let it fall where it may. Thats what we are doing here today. We are standing up in front of you, wearing the white hat, being the good guys, saying to you, Meth is bad, and This was a sale that happened that night, and he was part of that sale, and you cant have this stuff. You saw Lisa Nunes. You saw what its done to her. I don't care how much lipstick you put on a pig, its still a pig. Thats whats going on here today, trying to change it into something else. Thats what I think your verdict of guilt is going to be based on.
Defendant argues this portion of the argument, when viewed in conjunction with the earlier statement about Mayberry being a drug dealer, implied that more evidence of guilt existed, but that the District Attorney had refrained from presenting it out of a sense of justice. Thus, defendants argument is that when combined, these arguments were an expression of personal belief in guilt, based upon evidence not before the jury. We frankly do not see how defendant can get that message from the prosecutors, at worst, awkward argument.
When arguing to the jury, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to express a personal belief in the defendants guilt if there is a substantial danger that the jurors will construe the statement as meaning that the belief is based on information or evidence outside the trial record [citation], but expressions of belief in the defendants guilt are not improper if the prosecutor makes clear that the belief is based on the evidence before the jury [citation]. . . . (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 781-782.)
When viewed in context of the argument being made, we cannot agree with defendants characterization of the prosecutors comments. The comments regarding Mayberry were directed at the credibility of defendants and Mayberrys testimony explaining the events at the mini-mart. The assertion of belief that Mayberry was a drug dealer was a fair inference from the evidence before the jury. That is, that defendant had been asked to procure methamphetamine, made a phone call to Mayberry, met him at the mini-mart, and a drug deal was concluded.
Moreover, even if the statement by the prosecutor was inappropriate, defense counsel responded specifically to the assertion in his own closing argument. He argued that Mayberry was a professional man with a degree in orthopedics who would not have put his career in jeopardy by testifying to protect defendant from being convicted of buying drugs from him. He went so far as to characterize such an assertion as absolutely crazy. Defense counsel may have made the tactical choice to respond to the matter in argument rather than object, believing this would be more persuasive to the jury. We cannot find such a tactical choice falls below the standards of professional norms.
Nor were the statements about the respective roles of the prosecutor and defense counsel misconduct. We disagree with defendants assertion that this statement implied the prosecutor had not presented all evidence of guilt because he was one of the good guys who sought justice. Again, we can discern no such implication in the prosecutors comments. The prosecutors statements were not an expression of a personal belief in defendants guilty based on matters not in evidence. Rather, the comments expressed a confidence, a belief, in the evidence presented. (People v. Brown (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 116, 133.)
Moreover, the comment appears to have been a response to some previous discussion of the respective roles of counsel made by defense counsel in the course of jury selection and an effort to focus the jury on what the prosecution believed to be the relevant facts of the case. The statements here simply reiterated the distinction in the relative roles of counsel.
[T]he prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the deficiencies in opposing counsels tactics and factual account. (Peoplev. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846.) An argument which does no more than point out that the defense is attempting to confuse the issues and urges the jury to focus on what the prosecution believes is the relevant evidence is not improper. (Peoplev. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1302, fn. 47.) Here, the prosecutors remarks regarding the roles of the prosecutor and defense counsel were fair comment and no misconduct occurred. The prosecutor has a duty to present facts and evidence to prove the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel has a duty to defend his client. That was the gist of the prosecutors comments: that he had laid out the facts of a drug deal, and defendant was involved, irrespective of how defense counsel might try to argue the facts and change their appearance. This is so, notwithstanding the prosecutors unfortunate description of the defense attorneys role as look[ing] at loopholes to get their client off.
As above, because the comments were proper argument and did not constitute misconduct, counsels failure to object did not fall below the objectively reasonable professional standards and cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
III
Sentencing
Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the midterm sentence, even though he was a first time offender and committed the crime in response to repeated badgering by Villones. Defendant relies on the fact that the probation report recommended a grant of probation and that the court relied on a factual finding which was not supported by the evidence.
The People contend this argument was forfeited by defendants failure to object below. However, there was extensive argument by defense counsel regarding the courts tentative decision. The purpose of requiring an objection at the trial level is to provide the court with the opportunity to correct the error. (People v. Marchand (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1060.) We believe counsels arguments regarding sentencing were sufficient to accomplish this purpose and therefore do not find the matter forfeited.
The probation report recommended defendant be placed on probation. The report relied on defendants difficult past, his self-reported reluctant sale of methamphetamine to Villones, his expressed remorse, his prior positive contributions to the community, his lack of a prior record, and his voluntary acknowledgement of wrongdoing at an early stage of the proceedings.
The court issued a tentative ruling. The tentative ruling noted that defendant had not acknowledged wrongdoing at an early stage of the proceedings, but rather proceeded to a jury trial. The court also felt the probation officer had not adequately analyzed the facts of the case. Specifically, the court noted defendant had been involved as an active participant in the sale of drugs, which involved planning and sophistication. He was known as a source of drugs in the casino and appeared to be an in-control drug dealer on the videotapes.
Prior to the sentencing hearing, the court reiterated the error in the probation report, and stated it was denying probation. The court stated it would deny probation, finding defendant was engaged in a retail drug sales operation that involved planning and a moderate level of sophistication . . . . From the evidence at trial it was clear that defendant was known as a source of illegal drugs . . . . [I]t was shown he was a cautious drug dealer . . . . He was an active participant in a business approach to sales of . . . methamphetamine. The court then indicated its intention to impose the legal term of three years. Both defense counsel and the prosecutor then argued the matter to the court. At no time did defense counsel make any objection based on the courts reference to the middle term as the legal term. The court then imposed sentence consistent with the tentative ruling.
Initially, we do not agree that the courts statement it was imposing the legal term of three years demonstrates the court misunderstood the scope of its discretion since there was no longer a presumption that the middle term should apply. It is defendants burden to show affirmatively the court misunderstood the scope of its discretion. (People v. Alvarez (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 679, 695.) He has failed to do so.
When read in context and in conjunction with defense counsels arguments for probation and the courts articulation of various factors supporting its sentencing choice, the statement that the court would impose the legal term of three years was just reflective of the trial courts belief that the circumstances of this offense warranted imposition of the middle term, not that the middle term was the presumptive sentence.
Nor do we find that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant probation and sentencing him to the middle term. In making its sentencing decision, the trial court may consider all circumstances in aggravation and mitigation. (Pen. Code, 1170, subd. (b).) In addition to the statutory aggravating and mitigating factors, the court may consider any criteria reasonably related to the defendant and the crime committed. (People v. Brown (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1044-1045.)
In passing, we note that defendant makes much of the trial courts observation that defendant did not admit guilt at an early stage and, instead, went to trial, arguing that the courts comments can only be construed as the courts intention to punish defendant for exercising his right to a jury trial. We read the matter differently. The court was merely noting that one of the factors in mitigation of sentence that the probation report apparently relied on in making its recommendation of probation was not supported by the record. It is the defendants burden to establish that the trial court imposed a harsher sentence as a punishment for his election to go to trial. (People v. Szeto, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 35.) Defendant has not met his burden here.
The court's sentencing decision is within its broad discretion and must be affirmed unless arbitrary or irrational. (People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1582; People v. Lamb (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 397, 401.) The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review. (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977-978.)
Here, the court sat through the trial, saw the witnesses, including defendant, testify. The court viewed the videotapes of defendant and the other parties during this transaction. The court read and considered the probation report and the arguments of counsel. The probation officer and defense counsel viewed defendant as having succumbed to pressure from Nunes who kept bugging him. The court was entitled to find other evidence more persuasive. After watching the videotapes and the witnesses testimony, the courts view of the evidence was that defendant presented himself as an in-control drug seller who was cautious, not necessarily reluctant.
The court also found defendant was engaged in an operation which involved planning and a moderate level of sophistication. This conclusion is supported by the evidence that defendant was able immediately to make a single phone call to his supplier, and arrange for the drug deal to be conducted offsite, away from the casino where there could be additional repercussions, such as losing his gambling privileges. That defendant did not carry the drugs on him does not militate against a finding that he was engaged in this as a business operation with some sophistication. Rather it supports the courts conclusion that defendant was cautious in his drug dealing. Similarly, that defendant did not personally handle the transaction, but instead acted as a middleman between Mayberry and Villones. Using Nunes to actually deliver the drugs also supports the trial courts conclusion that defendant was part of a retail drug operation being conducted with some level of planning and sophistication.
There was also support for the courts conclusion that defendant was known as a source for drugs at the casino. Villones had been directed by a local officer familiar with local drug dealers, to approach defendant directly as part of the undercover operation. In addition, when Villones approached Nunes about getting some methamphetamine, Nunes said she knew where to get it and went to defendant. Nunes assured Villones that the drugs from defendant would be better quality than those she was getting from the other dealer. Nunes seeking defendant out as a supplier of drugs, the reputation of quality of the drugs defendant provided, and the previous direction to Villones to approach defendant about buying drugs support the courts finding that defendant was known as a source of illegal drugs at the casino.
Thus, contrary to defendants claim, the findings of the court underlying its sentencing decision are supported by substantial evidence. These findings support both the denial of probation and the imposition of the middle term. There was no abuse of discretion.
IV
Fines and Fees
Relying on People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, defendants final contention is that the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment do not properly delineate the components of the various fines and fees which were imposed. The People concede the point.
Disposition
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to the Lassen County Superior Court with instructions to provide a detailed recitation of all fees, fines and penalties on the record, and amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. A certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
HULL, J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
