legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. McDowell
Defendants Laura M. McDowell and Ricky L. Welch (defendants) appeal from judgments entered after a jury convicted them of possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11383, subd. (c)(1); count 3.) Welch also appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale ( 11378; count 2). Welch admitted his two prior drug convictions and McDowell admitted a single prior drug conviction. ( 11370.2, subd. (b).) Prior to trial, the court dismissed count 1 (manufacturing methamphetamine) against defendants under Penal Code section 995.
Welch joins in McDowells contentions and adds that there was insufficient evidence to support his count 3 conviction because there was no evidence that the amount of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine in his possession was sufficient to manufacture a usable amount of methamphetamine. Welch also challenges his sentence on count 3, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing an aggravated term based on facts not found by the jury, in violation of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S., 127 S.Ct. 856, 864, 871 (Cunningham).
Court find no error and affirm the judgments against McDowell and Welch.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale