People v. Bush, A140589M

Background

CHP stopped William David Bush for speeding and detected a strong marijuana odor in his Mercedes; officers found $46,959 in cash packaged in sealed parcels in the trunk. A drug dog alerted to the cash; officers found other indicia (marijuana particles, grow supplies, seller shorthand, large cash deposits, erased phone texts). Bush gave inconsistent explanations (ATM business in Mexico; his mother gifted the money).
Bush was charged with (1) knowingly receiving/acquiring proceeds derived from controlled substance offenses with intent to conceal or avoid reporting (Health & Saf. Code §11370.9(a)) and (2) driving with a suspended license. He waived counsel and represented himself at trial.
Jury convicted on both counts; court imposed probation, six months jail, forfeiture of the cash, and a $94,000 fine. Bush appealed, arguing (a) his Faretta waiver was defective, (b) insufficient evidence of intent to conceal money’s nature/source, (c) he cannot be convicted under §11370.9 for proceeds he obtained by selling drugs himself, and (d) instructional error for not defining elements of the underlying controlled-substance offense.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the Faretta colloquies (ten hearings where the trial court repeatedly warned Bush and offered appointed counsel), concluded the record overall demonstrated a knowing and intelligent waiver, and analyzed whether any omission (specifically failure to mention maximum statutory fine) was harmless.
On the merits, the court found substantial circumstantial and expert evidence supporting intent to conceal the money’s nature/source (packaging, dog alerts, marijuana in car, inconsistent explanations, use of cash/e-transfers and failure to file taxes), and held any instructional omission was harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Faretta waiver	Court’s repeated warnings and offers of appointed counsel show waiver was knowing and intelligent	Omission of specific admonition of maximum monetary fine (up to $250,000) rendered waiver defective per Tovar/Arrendondo	Waiver valid on record as whole; even if omission error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Bush remained adamant and understood risks
Sufficiency of evidence of intent to conceal nature/source	Circumstantial and expert evidence (packaging used to block drug odor, dog alerts, marijuana evidence, inconsistent statements, cash practices) support specific intent	Mere secretive transport of cash insufficient (citing Cuellar) to prove intent to conceal source/nature	Evidence was sufficient; jury could infer intent from packaging, dog alerts, surrounding facts; alternative theory (avoid reporting) also supported verdict
Applicability of §11370.9 to sellers of drugs	Prosecutor may not charge money-laundering for proceeds from one’s own drug sales (Santos-influenced argument)	Statute’s plain language covers any person who knowingly acquires proceeds "directly or indirectly" from Controlled Substances Act violations; Legislature defined "proceeds" to include direct receipts	Rejected Santos-based argument; §11370.9 applies to persons who acquired proceeds by unlawful sales when requisite intent is proven
Jury instruction duty to define elements of underlying drug offense sua sponte	Court must instruct on all elements of offenses; omission of elements of uncharged underlying sale required reversal	Section 11370.9’s statutory language and contextual instruction (possession for sale as example) sufficed; no sua sponte duty to define sale elements; omission harmless given overwhelming evidence	No reversible instructional error; elements were adequately covered or omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (criminal defendant has right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
Burgener, 46 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2009) (test for valid Faretta waiver is whether record as whole shows defendant understood risks and complexities)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2004) (no rigid checklist of admonitions required; required information depends on case-specific factors)
Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (plurality construes "proceeds" in federal money-laundering statute narrowly for certain predicate offenses)
Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (U.S. 2008) (transporting secreted cash alone may be insufficient to prove intent to conceal source under certain federal statute)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (denial of counsel of choice is structural error)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)