Filed 6/18/26 P. v. Moran CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D086867
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD307940)
v.
FABIAN MORAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed.
Fabian Moran, in pro. per., and Anna M. Jauregui-Law, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Fabian Moran of transportation of a controlled
substance for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and possession of
a controlled substance for sale (id. § 11378.)
The court sentenced Moran to three years in prison with one year
suspended to be served in mandatory supervision.
Moran filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We
advised Moran he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with
a letter brief.
Moran asks the court to grant him compassionate release due to illness
of a family member. Moran’s submission does not identify any arguable
issues for reversal on appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellate counsel has submitted a useful summary of the evidence
presented at trial, including the testimony admitted regarding prior similar
acts. We will incorporate the factual summary into this opinion to provide
background.
Prosecution Evidence
On May 13, 2025, at 1:30 a.m., Officer Arrifa Luis and his partner,
Officer Michael Hagen, saw a white pickup truck with an obstructed rear
license plate. The obstruction was a black plastic bag. The officers activated
the patrol car lights and siren to stop the driver. The driver did not comply
and continued driving. Eventually, the truck stopped. Defendant was the
driver and sole occupant. The plastic bag that obstructed the license plate
contained what appeared to be marijuana.
A search of defendant produced a golf ball size crystalline substance
that was contained in a clear plastic bag. The crystalline substance was
determined to be 3.11 grams of methamphetamine. A pipe was found on the
seat of the truck. A bottle of vodka was observed between the driver and
passenger seat area.
A further search of the automobile produced three plastic bags
containing a crystalline substance. The bags were hidden in the dashboard
behind the air conditioning vent. What caught the officer’s attention was an
unusual hole in the dashboard. He looked in and saw an orange/yellow piece
of cloth. This was also unusual because that compartment should only
contain wires and tape. He retrieved the contents. The crystalline substance
contained in the three bags all tested positive for methamphetamine. One
bag contained 10.10 grams of methamphetamine and the other two weighed a
total of 26.2 grams. All four bags recovered from defendant and the truck
weighed a total of 39.4 grams. The total street value, on the low end, would
be approximately $788. Also recovered were two cell phones and $154, which
was on defendant in denominations of $20, $10, and $1. Based on the
quantity, size, weight, and packaging of the drugs; the fact that the drugs
were hidden in the truck dashboard; the defendant had two phones; and the
cash, Officer Hagen opined that the drugs were possessed for sales and were
being transported for sales. Exhibit 16, a certified packet from the
Department of Motor Vehicles, was submitted to demonstrate that defendant
was the registered owner of the white truck since July 2024.
Prior similar act evidence was introduced. The first incident took place
on July 24, 2020. Officer Milad Tilko initiated a traffic stop of defendant. A
search of defendant’s pocket produced a glass pipe commonly used to smoke
methamphetamine, and in his sock there was a Ziploc bag which contained
two bindles of white crystalline substances determined to be
methamphetamine. One weighed one gram and the other .93 grams. A
search of the vehicle produced a black bag which was in the rear passenger
seat; it contained 200 unused, empty baggies and two digital scales. The
officer opined that the methamphetamine was possessed for sales.
The second incident took place on May 8, 2021. Officer Petra Saltzman
was the investigator of a case involving the defendant. She reviewed body-
worn camera video coverage of a traffic stop and search of the defendant as
well as the evidence recovered. A backpack that was on the back seat of the
vehicle contained baggies of a controlled substance—methamphetamine, a
scale, and small plastic baggies. The small baggies weighed at .05 and .07
ounces. In five bigger baggies the weight was 4.47 ounces. A search of the
defendant produced two baggies with methamphetamine which weighed at
.05 and .07 ounces. The officer opined the drugs were possessed for sale.
Defense Evidence
Defendant testified that he started using methamphetamine when he
was 13 years old; he sold methamphetamine in the past; he pled guilty; and
he took accountability. On the night of the present incident, defendant did
not stop his vehicle because he panicked based on the fact that a person was
killed on that street by the San Diego Police Department; it was very dark;
and he could not find a place to park where it was light. One phone belonged
to him, and the other phone belonged to his girlfriend. The drugs that were
found in defendant’s truck belonged to him. He did not intend to sell the
drugs. The pipe found in the truck belonged to him. On cross-examination,
he admitted placing the drugs in the hole to prevent from getting caught by
law enforcement and admitted creating the hole. He did not tell the officers
that he did not know there were drugs in the truck because he was not asked.
He did not plead guilty in this case because he was not selling. He is a user.
Prosecution Rebuttal
Officer Hagen testified that sellers of methamphetamine can also be
users and users can be sellers to support their habit. The lowest price for an
ounce of methamphetamine is $280. Officer Hagen has not seen an ounce sell
for $120. A user typically carries 1 to 5 grams.
Evidence was presented that defendant informed Officer Luis that he
did not know anything about the drugs in the dashboard.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738
(Anders) counsel has identified four possible issues that were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
A. Did the court err in permitting introduction of prior similar act
evidence?
B. Did the trial court err in denying the motion to dismiss under Penal
Code section 1118.1?
C. Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction?
D. Did the trial court err in ordering a three-year midterm sentence?
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende
and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on
appeal. Competent counsel has represented Moran in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.