P. v. Jones















Filed 10/5/10 P. v. Jones CA4/2













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS





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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 >



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN ANTOINE JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

E049211 (Super.Ct.No. RIF148355) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior
Court of Riverside
County. Carl E. Davis,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San
Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.) Affirmed.

Victoria S. Cole, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney
General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons,
Assistant Attorney General, Kevin Vienna, Douglas Danzig, and A. Natasha
Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

INTRODUCTION

On June 12, 2009, an amended information charged defendant
and appellant Kevin Antoine Jones with possession
of marijuana for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11359. The information also alleged three prison
priors and one strike prior under Penal Code sections 667.5, subdivision (b),
667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).

A
jury found defendant guilty as charged.
Thereafter, defendant admitted the truth of the prior allegations. On July 31, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to
state prison for four years eight months.
On appeal, defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to
support his conviction. For the reasons
set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment.

II

STATEMENT
OF FACTS

Around
10:24
a.m. on February
4, 2009, Riverside
Police Officer Sahagun was on patrol when he observed a black Honda in the area
of Chicago and University Avenues in Riverside.
Officer Sahagun noticed that the car lacked a rear license plate, in
violation of Vehicle Code section 5200.
Therefore, the officer pulled the Honda over. Officer Sahagun was assisted by another
officer in a separate patrol car.

After
Officer Sahagun contacted the driver and advised him why he had been pulled
over, defendant, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, interjected and
told the officer that he was the registered owner of the car. The officer recalled that defendant also
provided proof of the car's registration to him.

Officer
Sahagun asked to search the car; defendant agreed. Defendant did not appear nervous when he gave
consent. Before conducting the search,
however, Officer Sahagun conducted a pat down search for the officers'
safety. Defendant appeared very sweaty when
Officer Sahagun escorted him out of the car.
The officer found two cell phones, but did not find any weapons or drugs
on defendant.

When
Officer Sahagun went to pat down the driver, Mr. Brigett, Mr. Brigett advised
the officer that he had marijuana in his pocket. Consistently, the officer found a plastic
bindle containing approximately 6.7 grams of marijuana in Mr. Brigett's pant
pocket. Mr. Brigett did not appear
nervous during his encounter with the officer.

A
subsequent search of defendant's car produced 25.6 grams more of
marijuana. It was located by the back of
the engine, to the top right corner of the engine compartment. It was in a black mitten containing a baggie
filled with 17 bindles of marijuana.
Each bindle ranged from 1 to 1.5 grams.
The mitten appeared to have been recently placed in the engine
compartment. It did not appear dirty
with engine grease or burn marks.
Moreover, the odor of marijuana emanating from the glove was
strong. Marijuana odor dissipates with
age of the marijuana.

Both
defendant and Mr. Brigett denied any knowledge of the marijuana found in the
engine compartment of defendant's car.
Officer Sahagun cited Mr. Brigett for marijuana possession for the
amount found on him and released him.
The officer then booked defendant for possession for sale, concluding
that defendant would know what was in his car.

Marc
Bender, a Riverside County Sheriff's investigator, listened to all of the
testimony at trial. Thereafter, he
testified on behalf of the prosecution as a narcotics expert. Investigator Bender had 27 years of
experience as a deputy sheriff, with the majority of his time spent working
with street drugs including undercover purchases, working with informants and
interviewing offenders. After listening
to all of the testimony and evidence, Investigator Bender was of the opinion
that the marijuana found in the engine compartment of defendant's car was for
sale. Although the quantity could have
been for personal use, the packaging style was consistent with dope
dealing. Investigator Bender noted that
drug users do not put personal use marijuana into so many different bags.

Investigator
Bender additionally testified that, based on training and experience in the
area of narcotic sales, if defendant had been selling out of the car, he would
have expected to find it in the passenger compartment. The driver usually drives, while the seller
sits in the passenger compartment and deals from there; taking money in
exchange for drugs. However, if the
marijuana was just being transported, then Investigator Bender would expect the
drug dealer to hide it elsewhere since street cops typically limit their search
to the passenger compartment. Like
Officer Sahagun, Investigator Bender opined that defendant would have known there
was marijuana in his engine compartment.
Investigator Bender explained that based on the thousands of cases like
this that he has handled, â€