People v. Lua
10 Cal. App. 5th 1004
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- defendant Lua was convicted of transportation for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and simple possession, with prior drug convictions and prison terms enhancing the sentence.
- A January 25, 2015 traffic stop yielded a hidden magnet-attached box containing methamphetamine in the car Lua was driving; Lua denied knowledge of the box.
- The box was previously found in Lua’s residence during a prior search, showing a similar box and packaging materials, suggesting a connection to drug activity.
- The jury received CALCRIM 2300 (transportation for sale), CALCRIM 2302 (possession), and CALCRIM 251 (intent) and returned guilty on count 1 and a mixed verdict on count 2 (not guilty of possession for sale, but guilty of simple possession).
- During sentencing, the court imposed a 17-year aggregate term with five Health and Safety Code 11370.2 enhancements and stayed three 667.5 prison-term enhancements, later raising questions about the court’s understanding of its sentencing discretion.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed most rulings but remanded for resentencing to determine whether enhancements should be struck under 1385; it criticized the sentencing remarks as potentially showing misunderstanding of sentencing discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CALCRIM 2300 correctly state the 'for sale' specific intent element? | Lua | Lua | No prejudicial error; instruction read with context supports 'for sale' intent. |
| Did the trial court adequately respond to jury deliberation questions? | People | Lua | No abuse of discretion; responses were appropriate and helpful under 1138. |
| Did the verdict form error for count 1 (omitting 'for sale') constitute prejudicial error? | People | Lua | Harmless error; no reversible prejudice shown. |
| Did the trial court properly understand its discretion to strike enhancements under 1385? | People | Lua | Remand required; ambiguity in the record about the court's understanding of 1385 discretion. |
| Should the case be remanded for resentencing due to possible misapplication of enhancements? | People | Lua | Yes; remand to consider striking enhancements and correct discretionary errors. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Posey, 32 Cal.4th 193 (Cal. 2004) (standard for reviewing jury instructions de novo)
- Hajek v. Vo, 58 Cal.4th 114 (Cal. 2014) (jury instruction interpretation guided by closing arguments)
- People v. Richardson, 43 Cal.4th 959 (Cal. 2008) (instruction interpretation with regard to for sale elements)
- People v. Gonzalez, 51 Cal.3d 1179 (Cal. 1990) (Pen. Code 1138 duty to clarify jury instructions)
- People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1991) (abuse of discretion standard for 1138 determinations)
- Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing enhancements)
- People v. Deloza, 18 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1998) (concurrency and discretion in sentencing)
- People v. Langston, 33 Cal.4th 1237 (Cal. 2004) (mandatory nature of certain enhancements when not struck)
- People v. Eagle, 246 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (interpretation of 'for sale' in 11379 amendments)