People v. Keith
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 768
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- On March 24, 2013, police observed Eric Stokes (in a wheelchair) hand what resembled rock cocaine to a woman; she paid him and put the item in her pocket. Stokes then approached Mark Keith and placed folded paper into Keith’s pocket. Officers intervened and arrested both men; a strip search of Keith produced 2.7 grams of rock cocaine.
- A jury convicted Keith of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11351.5) and Stokes of transportation/sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11352).
- Keith received an aggregate eight-year county jail term (five-year high term for § 11351.5 plus a three-year enhancement). Stokes, with a prior serious/violent felony, received 12 years in state prison under recidivist enhancements (Pen. Code §§ 667, 1170.12).
- Appellate counsel filed Wende-type opening briefs raising no arguable issues; the court conducted independent review. Keith submitted a pro se letter raising confrontation and suppression arguments.
- The trial court denied Keith’s motion to suppress (renewed after the prelim). The court imposed a $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee with unspecified penalty assessments; the abstracts omitted the orally imposed statutory assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause (Keith) | People: admissible — testifying officer (Officer Lara) observed recovery and was cross-examined | Keith: officer who recovered the rock (Officer Riojas) did not testify, violating confrontation rights | Forfeited at trial; alternatively no violation because Officer Lara witnessed recovery, testified, and was subject to cross-examination; no Sixth Amendment error |
| Probable Cause / Suppression (Keith) | People: officers observed facts and drew reasonable inferences from narcotics expertise showing a drug transaction, giving probable cause to arrest | Keith: officers lacked probable cause; the contact was insufficient to justify arrest | The totality of observed facts and officer expertise supported probable cause; suppression denial affirmed |
| Retroactive Application of SB 1010 / Sentencing under amended § 11351.5 (Keith) | People: (as briefed) new, reduced sentence should not apply only if an express savings clause or finality bars it | Keith: reduced punishment under 2014 amendment should apply to him because the judgment was not final and the amendment mitigates punishment | The amendment reduces punishment; under In re Estrada the mitigatory amendment applies; Keith’s sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing under the amended statute |
| Abstracts of Judgment / Penalty Assessments (both) | People: court orally imposed $50 lab fee plus penalty assessments; abstracts must reflect all statutory assessments | Defendants: (no contrary position preserved in opinion) | Abstracts must be amended to add the specific penalty assessments and surcharges tied to the $50 lab fee; clerk to deliver amended abstracts to CDCR |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (procedure for independent appellate review when appointed counsel raises no arguable issues)
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1965) (Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (mitigatory statutory changes apply retroactively when judgment not final)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause is based on totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (officers may rely on training and experience to draw inferences for probable cause)