47 California opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences2015(See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124 .) Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) (count one), second degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459 (count two),1 and petty theft with priors in violation of section 666 (count three). 2014(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120, 124 .) 2 A report, filed by the chief probation officer, stated under the subheading “Collateral Court Information” (boldface omitted) that on March 27, 2013, McKenna had pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), possessing an opium pipe and/or controlled substance paraphernalia in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364.1, subdivision (a), and driving without a valid license in violation of Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a). 4 DISPOSITION The order | 3 | 3 |
People v. Lynallgreen2 sentences2016Prior to the amendment, possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), was punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. ( People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102 , 1108, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 129 ( Lynall ).) As a result of the amendment, possession of a controlled substance is now punishable as a misdemeanor "unless the defendant 'has one or more prior convictions' for an offense specified in Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv) -which lists serious and violent felonies that are sometimes referred to as ' "super strik 2016Prior to the amendment, possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), was punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. ( People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102 , 1108, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 129 ( Lynall ).) As a result of the amendment, possession of a controlled substance is now punishable as a misdemeanor "unless the defendant 'has one or more prior convictions' for an offense specified in Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv) -which lists serious and violent felonies that are sometimes referred to as ' "super strik | 2 | 10 |
People v. Cortezgreen2 sentences1999Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) is violated when a person steers or controls a vehicle while it is in motion and, while doing so, either commits a legally forbidden act or neglects a duty imposed by law. ( In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1145 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ; People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 1183-1184 , 269 Cal.Rptr. 21 .) Transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Codesection 11352, subdivision (a) occurs when a person moves contraband from one place to another. ( People v. Cortez (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 994, 998-999 , 212 C 1999Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) is violated when a person steers or controls a vehicle while it is in motion and, while doing so, either commits a legally forbidden act or neglects a duty imposed by law. ( In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1145 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ; People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 1183-1184 , 269 Cal.Rptr. 21 .) Transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Codesection 11352, subdivision (a) occurs when a person moves contraband from one place to another. ( People v. Cortez (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 994, 998-999 , 212 C | 2 | 4 |
People v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences1999(In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1145 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]; People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 1183-1184 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 21 ].) Transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) occurs when a person moves contraband from one place to another. 1999(In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1145 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]; People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 1183-1184 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 21 ].) Transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) occurs when a person moves contraband from one place to another. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Queen T.green2 sentences1999(In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1145 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]; People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 1183-1184 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 21 ].) Transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) occurs when a person moves contraband from one place to another. 1999(In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1145 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]; People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 1183-1184 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 21 ].) Transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) occurs when a person moves contraband from one place to another. | 2 | 4 |
In Re Prestongreen2 sentences2016(See In re Preston (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1115-1116 [“ ‘ “washing out” ’ ” connotes “ ‘a crime-free cleansing period of rehabilitation after a defendant has had the opportunity to reflect upon the error of his or her ways’ ”].) Possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11350 and 11377 was punishable as a felony at the time defendant committed and was convicted of those offenses and sentenced to prison for those offenses (in 2009), when he committed the current offense (in 2012), and when judgment was imposed (in 2013). 2015(See In re Preston (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1115-1116 [“ ‘ “washing out” ’ ” connotes “ ‘a crime-free cleansing period of rehabilitation after a defendant has had the opportunity to reflect upon the error of his or her ways’ ”].) Possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11350 and 11377 was punishable as a felony at the time defendant committed and was convicted of those offenses and sentenced to prison for those offenses (in 2009), when he committed the current offense (in 2012), and when judgment was imposed (in 2013). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2016(People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1092 (Rivera).) As a result of Proposition 47, Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) now provides that possession of specified controlled substances is punishable as a misdemeanor unless the defendant has certain disqualifying prior convictions.2 2 Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) provides for the following punishment: “imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, except that such person shall instead be punished pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code if that person has one o 2016These offenses had previously been designated as either felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either felonies or misdemeanors)." (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091 (Rivera).) Prior to the enactment of Proposition 47, possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), was punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Keelegreen1 sentence2025Code, §§ 1203.2, subd. (b)(1), 1203.3, subd. (a); People v. Keele (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 [trial court retains jurisdiction to review probation officer’s actions]; People v. Arevalo (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 652, 658 [If probation officer interprets probation condition in an arbitrary way, the defendant can file a petition for modification of his probation condition.].) Thus, the probation condition did not improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation officer. 5 One remaining condition requires that defendant submit to a controlled substance test at the direction of the probation | 1 | 1 |
People v. Arevalogreen1 sentence2025Code, §§ 1203.2, subd. (b)(1), 1203.3, subd. (a); People v. Keele (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 [trial court retains jurisdiction to review probation officer’s actions]; People v. Arevalo (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 652, 658 [If probation officer interprets probation condition in an arbitrary way, the defendant can file a petition for modification of his probation condition.].) Thus, the probation condition did not improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation officer. 5 One remaining condition requires that defendant submit to a controlled substance test at the direction of the probation | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ricardo P. (In Re Ricardo P.)green1 sentence2024Each test is subject to a fee ….” 2 4) Term 008F: “Permit visits and searches of places of residence by agents of the Probation Department and/or law enforcement for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of probation; not do anything to interfere with this requirement, or deter officers from fulfilling this requirement, such as erecting any locked fences/gates that would deny access to Probation Officers, or have any animals on the premises that would reasonably deter, threaten the safety of, or interfere with officers enforcing this term.” We review probation condit | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2017(People v. Gonzales, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 863, fn. 4; § 1170.18, subds. (a) & (f).) These provisions do not apply, however, “to persons who have one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290.” (§ 1170.18, subd. (i).) On March 10, 2015, a felony complaint charged defendant with possession, on or about March 9, 2015, of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) (count 2017(People v. Gonzales, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 863, fn. 4 ; § 1170.18, subds. (a) & (f).) These provisions do not apply, however, “to persons who have one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290.” (§ 1170.18, subd. (i).) On March 10, 2015, a felony complaint charged defendant with possession, on or about March 9, 2015, of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) (coun | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2017"In short, 'the prosecution simply failed to close a[n] ... evidentiary gap mandated by the terms of the statute ... allegedly violated.' [Citation.] Because it is not specifically listed" in sections 11055 or 11056, evidence that defendants possessed dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is insufficient to establish they possessed a controlled substance in violation of section 11351. " '[T]he matter in issue is ... not within the common knowledge of laymen.' " ( Davis, at p. 361, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 405 , 303 P.3d 1179 .) 13 Defendant's conviction for possessing dihydrocodeinone/Valium for sale ( § 11351, Cou 2017"In short, 'the prosecution simply failed to close a[n] ... evidentiary gap mandated by the terms of the statute ... allegedly violated.' [Citation.] Because it is not specifically listed" in sections 11055 or 11056, evidence that defendants possessed dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is insufficient to establish they possessed a controlled substance in violation of section 11351. " '[T]he matter in issue is ... not within the common knowledge of laymen.' " ( Davis, at p. 361, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 405 , 303 P.3d 1179 .) 13 Defendant's conviction for possessing dihydrocodeinone/Valium for sale ( § 11351, Cou | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Velasquezgreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2014CALCRIM No. 2400, the standard CALCRIM instruction for use of a controlled substance in violation of section 11550, tells the jury that the prosecution must prove that the defendant “used . . . a controlled substance[, a short time before (his/her) arrest].” (CALCRIM No. 2400.) The Bench Notes for CALCRIM No. 2400 state: “A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550 based on ‘use’ of a controlled substance requires ‘ “current use” or “use immediately prior to arrest”. . . .’ (People v. Jones (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 398, 403-404 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 408 ]; see also People v. Velasquez (1976) 54 2014CALCRIM No. 2400, the standard CALCRIM instruction for use of a controlled substance in violation of section 11550, tells the jury that the prosecution must prove that the defendant “used . . . a controlled substance[, a short time before (his/her) arrest].” (CALCRIM No. 2400.) The Bench Notes for CALCRIM No. 2400 state: “A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550 based on ‘use’ of a controlled substance requires ‘ “current use” or “use immediately prior to arrest”. . . .’ (People v. Jones (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 398, 403-404 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 408 ]; see also People v. Velasquez (1976) 54 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2014CALCRIM No. 2400, the standard CALCRIM instruction for use of a controlled substance in violation of section 11550, tells the jury that the prosecution must prove that the defendant “used . . . a controlled substance[, a short time before (his/her) arrest].” (CALCRIM No. 2400.) The Bench Notes for CALCRIM No. 2400 state: “A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550 based on ‘use’ of a controlled substance requires ‘ “current use” or “use immediately prior to arrest”. . . .’ (People v. Jones (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 398, 403-404 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 408 ]; see also People v. Velasquez (1976) 54 2014CALCRIM No. 2400, the standard CALCRIM instruction for use of a controlled substance in violation of section 11550, tells the jury that the prosecution must prove that the defendant “used . . . a controlled substance[, a short time before (his/her) arrest].” (CALCRIM No. 2400.) The Bench Notes for CALCRIM No. 2400 state: “A violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550 based on ‘use’ of a controlled substance requires ‘ “current use” or “use immediately prior to arrest”. . . .’ (People v. Jones (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 398, 403-404 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 408 ]; see also People v. Velasquez (1976) 54 | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Adamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hawkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Varnellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| County of Los Angeles v. Nobel Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Esparzagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Huertagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
2 sentences2021At sentencing, the court denied Sorto’s motion to strike the prior strike conviction (§ 1385, subd. (a); People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 ) and imposed a total term of 19 years and 4 months, plus 14 years to life in state prison. 2 Sorto was not bound over on count 8 of the felony complaint, which alleged simple possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11377, subdivision (a). 4 DISCUSSION Sorto attacks his convictions on count 6 (false imprisonment of Susana) and count 10 (forcibly dissuading Coronado from testifying), contendi 2015Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) He also admitted a prior conviction for transporting a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c) and an on-bail enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.1. 1 Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) asking the trial court to dismiss his prior burglary conviction. | 3 | 2014–2021 |
People v. Moore
green
2 sentences2017Supp. 13, 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 132 ) The trial court granted defendant three years of summary probation with 110 days in custody, and imposed various fines and fees. 2017Thus, it suffices to recount that defendant was convicted of being under the 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. 2 influence of a controlled substance in violation of section 11550, subdivision (a), and trespassing in violation of Penal Code section 602, subdivision (o). ( Moore, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Estrada
green
2 sentences2016Prior to the amendment, possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), was punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. ( People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102 , 1108, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 129 ( Lynall ).) As a result of the amendment, possession of a controlled substance is now punishable as a misdemeanor "unless the defendant 'has one or more prior convictions' for an offense specified in Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv) -which lists serious and violent felonies that are sometimes referred to as ' "super strik 2016Prior to the amendment, possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), was punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. ( People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102 , 1108, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 129 ( Lynall ).) As a result of the amendment, possession of a controlled substance is now punishable as a misdemeanor "unless the defendant 'has one or more prior convictions' for an offense specified in Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv) -which lists serious and violent felonies that are sometimes referred to as ' "super strik | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Perry
green
1 sentence2020(Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 888 ; Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 .) Specifically, because that provision applies only to the "any controlled substances, the possession of which is prohibited by Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code" (Pen. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Raybon
green
2 sentences2020(Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 126 .) Some of the analysis in Perry and Raybon is uniquely applicable to the crime of possessing a controlled substance in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6, which was the crime for which the Perry and Raybon defendants were convicted. 2020(Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 888 ; Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 .) Specifically, because that provision applies only to the "any controlled substances, the possession of which is prohibited by Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code" (Pen. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Brown
green
2 sentences2016Under section 3, it is the general rule that new Penal Code statutes apply prospectively only. (§ 3; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 , 319, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) In Estrada the California Supreme Court created a limited exception to this general rule. ( Brown, supra, at p. 323 , 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) Estrada held that a "legislative amendment that lessens criminal punishment is presumed to apply to all cases not yet final (the [enacting legislative body] deeming its former penalty too severe), unless there is a 'saving clause' providing for prospective a 2016Under section 3, it is the general rule that new Penal Code statutes apply prospectively only. (§ 3; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 , 319, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) In Estrada the California Supreme Court created a limited exception to this general rule. ( Brown, supra, at p. 323 , 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) Estrada held that a "legislative amendment that lessens criminal punishment is presumed to apply to all cases not yet final (the [enacting legislative body] deeming its former penalty too severe), unless there is a 'saving clause' providing for prospective a | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Rios
green
1 sentence2016Less than one year later, in April 2013, the People filed another two-count criminal complaint against Velasquez (2013 Complaint), alleging: In count 1, Velasquez committed street terrorism in violation of section 186.22, subdivision (a); and in count 2, Velasquez was a felon in possession of metal knuckles in violation of section 21810.16 15 This offense is also referred to as "gang participation." (People v. Rios (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 542, 558 .) 16 The 2013 Complaint also named Velasquez's brother, Jamerson, charging him with one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation o | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2016Though the sale or possession for sale of a controlled substance is a qualifying predicate offense (§ 186.22, subd. (e)(4)), and section 186.22, subdivision (e) does not require proof of a conviction, but only that the offense was committed (People v. Garcia 42 (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 519, 524 ), there was no showing, through Officer Smith’s testimony or otherwise, that Moncha and Bronson committed qualifying predicate offenses within three years of each other and after September 23, 1988 (§ 186.22, subd. (e)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hajek and Vo
green
2 sentences2016Under section 3, it is the general rule that new Penal Code statutes apply prospectively only. (§ 3; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 , 319, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) In Estrada the California Supreme Court created a limited exception to this general rule. ( Brown, supra, at p. 323 , 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) Estrada held that a "legislative amendment that lessens criminal punishment is presumed to apply to all cases not yet final (the [enacting legislative body] deeming its former penalty too severe), unless there is a 'saving clause' providing for prospective a 2016Under section 3, it is the general rule that new Penal Code statutes apply prospectively only. (§ 3; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 , 319, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) In Estrada the California Supreme Court created a limited exception to this general rule. ( Brown, supra, at p. 323 , 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) Estrada held that a "legislative amendment that lessens criminal punishment is presumed to apply to all cases not yet final (the [enacting legislative body] deeming its former penalty too severe), unless there is a 'saving clause' providing for prospective a | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2016Under section 3, it is the general rule that new Penal Code statutes apply prospectively only. (§ 3; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 , 319, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) In Estrada the California Supreme Court created a limited exception to this general rule. ( Brown, supra, at p. 323 , 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) Estrada held that a "legislative amendment that lessens criminal punishment is presumed to apply to all cases not yet final (the [enacting legislative body] deeming its former penalty too severe), unless there is a 'saving clause' providing for prospective a 2016Under section 3, it is the general rule that new Penal Code statutes apply prospectively only. (§ 3; People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 , 319, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) In Estrada the California Supreme Court created a limited exception to this general rule. ( Brown, supra, at p. 323 , 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 , 278 P.3d 1182 .) Estrada held that a "legislative amendment that lessens criminal punishment is presumed to apply to all cases not yet final (the [enacting legislative body] deeming its former penalty too severe), unless there is a 'saving clause' providing for prospective a | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hurtado
green
1 sentence2015It refers to ‘a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179 , 1188–1189.) Officer Olson arrested defendant for being under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of section 11550. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
DePierre v. United States
green
1 sentence2015First, although cocaine in its base form is chemically different from cocaine hydrochloride (commonly known as powder cocaine), both are “cocaine.” “[T]hey have the same active ingredient and produce the same physiological and psychotropic effects. [Citation.] The key difference between them is the method by which they generally enter the body; smoking cocaine in its base form . . . allows the body to absorb the active ingredient quickly, thereby producing a shorter, more intense high than obtained from insufflating cocaine hydrochloride.” (DePierre v. U.S. (2011) ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2225, | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Jordan (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 349 .) He received a 10-year prison sentence for that conviction. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Simmons, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at pp. 965-966 [holding that sufficient evidence supported a usable amount of heroin based on a police officer’s testimony that a balloon contained a “brownish powdery substance,” a “stipulation that 4 The parties disagree on whether defendant’s conviction on count 1 – sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352 – requires a finding that he possessed a usable amount. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Lingo
green
1 sentence2015“One may be guilty of being under the influence of drugs in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550 by being in that state in any detectable manner: ‘ “The symptoms of being under the influence within the meaning of that statute are not confined to those commensurate with misbehavior, nor to those which demonstrate impairment of physical or mental ability.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1278 , second italics added.) Officer Olson had probable cause to arrest defendant for being under the influence of a controlled substance based on his observations of defen | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Canty
green
1 sentence2015“One may be guilty of being under the influence of drugs in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550 by being in that state in any detectable manner: ‘ “The symptoms of being under the influence within the meaning of that statute are not confined to those commensurate with misbehavior, nor to those which demonstrate impairment of physical or mental ability.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1278 , second italics added.) Officer Olson had probable cause to arrest defendant for being under the influence of a controlled substance based on his observations of defen | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Babylon green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Ortiz green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Flood green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Montes green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Newman green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Daly green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Little green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Sharp green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. Birkett green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| In Re Scoggins green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| In Re DeLong green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.