P. v. Masotti
Filed 5/3/10 P. v.
Masotti 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Modoc)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICHARD MASOTTI,
Defendant and Appellant.
C061772
(Super.
Ct. No. F06463)
An information
accused defendant Richard Masotti of possession of Vicodin without a
prescription (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)),[1]
cultivation of marijuana (§ 11358), and two counts of sale of marijuana
(§ 11360, subd. (a)). The trial
court dismissed the Vicodin count. A
jury convicted defendant of cultivation and two counts of the lesser included
offense of furnishing marijuana
(§ 11360, subd. (b)).
Defendant was
sentenced to 120 days of incarceration with credit for five days and fined an
aggregate $1,660.[2]
On appeal,
defendant contends his cultivation conviction must be reversed because (1) the
trial court's instructions, together with the prosecutor's opening and closing
summations, materially misled the jury on his Compassionate Use Act (CUA;
§ 11362.5) defense, (2) he established his CUA defense as a matter of law,
(3) the jury was erroneously instructed on the elements of the offense, and (4)
the jury was not instructed on the prosecution's burden to prove that he
cultivated marijuana for some purpose other than personal medical use. We shall affirm the judgment.
â€
| Description | An information accused defendant Richard Masotti of possession of Vicodin without a prescription (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)),[1] cultivation of marijuana (§ 11358), and two counts of sale of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)). The trial court dismissed the Vicodin count. A jury convicted defendant of cultivation and two counts of the lesser included offense of furnishing marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to 120 days of incarceration with credit for five days and fined an aggregate $1,660.[2] On appeal, defendant contends his cultivation conviction must be reversed because (1) the trial court's instructions, together with the prosecutor's opening and closing summations, materially misled the jury on his Compassionate Use Act (CUA; § 11362.5) defense, (2) he established his CUA defense as a matter of law, (3) the jury was erroneously instructed on the elements of the offense, and (4) the jury was not instructed on the prosecution's burden to prove that he cultivated marijuana for some purpose other than personal medical use. Court shall affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
