P. v. Solomon
A search of the residence of defendant Peter Piero Solomon, conducted pursuant to a warrant, yielded evidence of his illegal possession of methamphetamine and items forbidden to defendant as a convicted felon. After the trial court denied defendant’s motion to quash or traverse the search warrant, a jury found him guilty of being a past‑convicted felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (Pen. Code, former §§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), 12316, subd. (b)(1)), possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and the actual sale of that controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379). The trial court found true enhancement allegations that defendant had two prior felonies (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and then sentenced him to state prison for an aggregate term of three years and eight months.
Defendant advances three contentions on this appeal. First, defendant argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally incompetent for not seeking suppression of the evidence on the additional ground that the search was improperly conducted at night, which requires reversal of all defendant’s convictions. Second, defendant argues the jury was improperly instructed on the principles of accomplice credibility, which assertedly requires reversal of the two drug-related convictions. Concerning his second contention, defendant faults the trial court for neglecting its duty to instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law; if this approach fails, defendant again wants to have responsibility placed on his trial counsel. Third, on the assumption that his first and second contentions are valid, defendant asserts his trial counsel prejudicially failed to move for acquittal on all charges at the close of the prosecution’s evidence. We see no reversible error and affirm.
Comments on P. v. Solomon