In the Court of Appeal of the State of California s9

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION NINE

Case No. B54321

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.

JIMMY JOHN HADDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. A12345 The Honorable Patricia McManus, Judge

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………6

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………..………………7

A. Evidence for the Prosecution.

…………………………………………….9

B. Evidence for the Defense.

………………………………………………..12

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………...14

I. THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT DENIED FOUND THE APPELLANT GUILTY AND HIS MOTIONS WERE DENIED……....……………….. ……………………...... 16

A. Court Proceedings……………………..

…………...... 16

B. The Laws that Apply..... ………………...... 16

II. CONCLUSION..…………………………………………..18

2 TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND CASES USED IN THE TRIAL

CASES Exhibit 1...... 9 Exhibit 2...... 9 Exhibit 3...... 10 Exhibit 4...... 10 Exhibit 5...... 10 Exhibit 6...... 10 Exhibit 7...... 10 Exhibit 8...... 10 Exhibit 9...... 10 Exhibit 10...... 11 Exhibit 11...... 11 Exhibit 12...... 11 Exhibit 13...... 11 People v. Low (2010) 49 Cal.4th 372...... 17

3 STATUTES

PENAL CODE 215 SUBDIVISION (A)………………………………17

PENAL CODE 1033-1038.…………………………………………10

PENAL CODE 4573 SUBDIVISION (A)..……………………………..7

PENAL CODE 528-539……………………………………………...8

PENAL CODE 594………………………………………………….8

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Cal. Const., Art. I, § 16...... 18 U.S. Const., 5th Amend...... 18

4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellant (the Accused) brought contraband into the jail in violation of Penal Code 4573 subdivision (A). The Accused entered a plea of not guilty. Matter is before a trial by jury.

There were thirty jury members. The thirty jury members found the Accused guilty. (CT 3.)

The court stated that the defendant had two prior felony convictions. One is a strike and the other is the current offense.

Probation was denied. Defendant is sentenced to two-years in low security prison pursuant to section 1170.12 and 667 subdivisions (B) through (J). The total state prison term is four years. He received

273 days of pre-sentence custody credit. The defendant was also ordered to pay restitution of one thousand two hundred dollars. A forty dollar court security fee and a thirty dollar criminal conviction fee. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Prosecution Evidence

According to the information, on February 1, 2016, the

Appellant brought contraband into the jail with one count in violation of Penal Code 4573 subdivision (A).

There was a voir dire of the prospective jurors.

The facts of the case are as follows. The Appellant and his friends were arrested at a local McDonald’s on Avenue L and 30th

Street West. They were arrested for one charge of vandalism in violation of Penal Code 594 and one charge of identity theft in violation of Penal Code 528-539. The group was found to have cards used for debit on them from other people as well as other items. The Appellant was also found with methamphetamine that he brought in with him to the L.A. County Jail.

Deputy Schriver told the Appellant that if you bring contraband into the jail you can be charged. The defendant pulled out the dope and said that he did not know that he had it in his pocket.

The added charges of the Appellant, the fact that he had been previously charged, was not seen as admissible to the court.

On the original charges, the deputies came and did a search of the Appellant’s vehicle along with his friends concerning the charge for vandalism. They found checks and debit cards belonging to other people. The count that he is charged with is bringing contraband into the jail. There was also methamphetamine inside the car.

Burglary tools were the reason for the arrest.

The People called their witnesses. The first witness was

Adam Schmenk. This was the patrol duty officer that examined the

Appellant and did not discover any contraband; however he is a new deputy officer. Exhibit 1 was an aerial photograph of the parking lot where the Appellant was found with the methamphetamine. Exhibit

2 was a picture of the Appellant’s vehicle. A photograph of a yellow post is Exhibit 3. Then Exhibit 4 was brought to the court which was one dollar bills and a syringe. The Exhibit 5 is a crystalline substance in a bag and a syringe.

After the cross-examination, the public attorney, Mr. Riggs, then did a direct examination of the first witness again. He focused on the amount of years that the deputy had been in service as well as what he found on the Appellant. Exhibit 6 is two additional syringes. Exhibit 7 is a photograph of a door and two signs. Exhibit

8 is a photograph of a sign in Spanish. Exhibit 9 is a photograph of a sign in English. All these photographs were taken at the jail scene.

One of the sign reads and this was read out by witness no. 1,

Deputy Schmenk:

It says (reading): "Warning. You are entering a jail facility and are subject to search at any time. It is a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison to possess or bring on to jail property controlled substances or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawful injecting or consuming controlled substances or alcoholic beverages or weapons, or to sell, furnish, administer, or give away or offer to sell, furnish, administer, or give away any controlled substances on a jail facility. Or to enter this facility without permission if you have served time in state prison."

After the first witness was cross-examined again, Mr. Riggs did a re-direct examination. The focus of the re-direct was on a screwdriver falling when Baer got out of the car.

The next witness was Deputy Daiquiri. Mr. Riggs direct examined the second witness as to the arrest and circumstances concerning the Appellant. Deputy Daiquiri was assigned as the handling deputy. Exhibit 10 was two photographs with a baggy with crystalline in the photos. Deputy Daiquiri identified the substance in the photos to be methamphetamine. It was taken to the lab and identified as well. The lab document is Exhibit 11. Another document from the crime lab with the substance label is marked as

Exhibit 12. Photographs of a vial marking lab receipt is Exhibit 13. The people then rest their case. It is now time for the case of the defense.

The prosecution also gave a closing statement focusing on the four points of argument that the court stated to the jury to determine either innocence or guilt of the Appellant. They are:

No. 1, the defendant either voluntarily or involuntarily entered a prohibitive area; namely, the inmate booking area of the Los

Angeles county sheriff's department, Lancaster station; No. 2, at that time, the defendant exercised control over or the right to control an amount of a controlled substance; No. 3, the person knew of its presence and its nature as a controlled substance; and No. 4, the substance was in an amount sufficient to be used for sale or consumption as a controlled substance.

When the prosecution attempted in his closing statement to ask the question: how did the Appellant know that the contraband was in his pocket? The court overruled this comment. The prosecution also focused on the black market nature of the illegal substance. Mr. Riggs also urged the jury not to consider the punishment that would be placed upon the Appellant.

The prosecution made no further comments regarding sentencing other than what was in closing remarks.

Defense Evidence

The Appellant (the Accused) wanted to file a change of venue motion in accordance with Penal Code 1033-1038. The motion was denied by the court.

The defense lawyer cross-examined the first witness. He focused on the fact that Deputy Schmenk did not find any contraband on the Appellant.

After witness no. 1 read out the sign in the jail, defense attorney Mr. King cross-examined the witness. Focusing on confusing the witness on where the narcotic was found.

King declined to cross-examine the second witness.

Again the defense put forward motion 1118 for dismissal.

The motion was respectfully denied by the court.

The Appellant took the stand. The Appellant has prior convictions of forgery, grand theft and carjacking. However, he was only convicted of petty theft which is a misdemeanor. The Appellant was discharged from parole in 2014. The Appellant did not testify.

The defense rested.

The closing statements of the defense, Mr. King focused on the motivation behind the defendant’s actions. He also urged for a mistrial and the motion was denied by the court. Mr. King also stated that there was nothing about the defendant testifying on his own behalf or nothing about the Fifth Amendment. Mr. King’s conclusion says that the latter indicates that this is not a fair analysis of the prosecutor’s statements. Mr. King focused on the reason at all why the defendant was arrested. Mr. King also focused on the semantics of bringing in a controlled substance into a jail and what exactly that means. The prosecution objected to this and the court sustained.

The defense attorney went on the record regarding the denial of the Romero motion when it came to being heard regarding sentencing. ARGUMENT

I. THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT DENIED FOUND THE APPELLANT GUILTY AND HIS MOTIONS WERE DENIED

The defense requested a change of venue motion which was

denied by the court. The defense requested a dismissal of the

case which was denied. The court deemed that this

proceeding was a general intent crime. (People v. Low

(2010) 49 Cal.4th at pp.353).

A. The Laws which Apply

The court stated that the following rules must apply for there

to be a finding of either guilt or innocence:

No. 1, the defendant either voluntarily or involuntarily entered a prohibitive area; namely, the inmate booking area of the Los Angeles county sheriff's department, Lancaster station; No. 2, at that time, the defendant exercised control over or the right to control an amount of a controlled substance; No. 3, the person knew of its presence and its nature as a controlled substance; and No. 4, the substance was in an amount sufficient to be used for sale or consumption as a controlled substance.

The defendant gave up his right to a jury trial if the jury were to come back with a guilty verdict. The jury’s verdict was:

We the jury in the above-entitled action find the defendant Jimmy Hadder guilty of the crime of brining contraband into the jail in violation of penal code section 4573(a), a felony. As charged in count 2 of the information dated May 11th, 2015, juror seat no. 2, 13 foreperson.

Neither the prosecution or the defense wished to have the jury polled.

The defendant had another case pending in another courtroom and the court was deciding on what to do regarding sentencing.

Sentencing reconvened on May 22, 2015. The one prior prison term that the Appellant had adds one more year to sentencing. The defendant gave up the right to a court trial on the prior convictions. Section 215 subdivision (A) was violated.

The court asked if the People wanted to be heard on the

Romero motion. Mr. Rigg had submitted an opposition and a sentencing memorandum regarding that motion. The court respectfully denied the Romero motion. The situation was from 2006 and was sentenced to five years in prison when that occurred.

The court decided that the defendant falls outside of the 3-strikes- law. This is the reason why the Romero motion was denied.

The court stated that the defendant had two prior felony convictions. One is a strike and the other is the current offense.

Probation was denied. Defendant is sentenced to two-years in low security prison pursuant to section 1170.12 and 667 subdivisions (B) through (J). The total state prison term is four years. He received

273 days of pre-sentence custody credit. The defendant was also ordered to pay restitution of one thousand two hundred dollars. A forty dollar court security fee and a thirty dollar criminal conviction fee.

The defense was requesting a Cruz waiver for the funds. The court gave the defendant and his counsel the rules of appeal. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, respondent respectfully submits that the judgment should be affirmed.

Dated: Respectfully submitted,