People v. Ramos
244 Cal. App. 4th 99
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 4, 2013, police stopped a Nissan driven by Roger Hernandez with Gloria Ramos as front-seat passenger; officers searched and found Ramos’s black purse containing 16.8 grams of heroin, ~2.9 grams of methamphetamine (in two baggies), a digital scale, packaging materials, pills, a glass pipe, and a loaded .25-caliber pistol.
- A duffle in the trunk contained hypodermic needles and Suboxone; Hernandez had $233 cash.
- Ramos admitted the purse was hers and under her control but denied knowledge of the drugs and gun; she waived Miranda and was interviewed.
- A jury convicted Ramos of transportation of heroin (Health & Safety Code § 11352) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Safety Code § 11378), among other counts; court granted probation and 365 days county jail.
- After conviction, § 11352 was amended to define “transports” as “to transport for sale,” making “transport for sale” an element of the offense. Parties agreed the amendment applies retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramos’s § 11352 (transportation of heroin) conviction stands after amendment requiring proof of transport for sale | Amendment applies but omission of the sale element was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other evidence (scale, baggies, packaging) | Jury never decided whether transport was for sale; amendment applies retroactively and requires reversal and remand; retrial barred if offense was effectively decriminalized | Conviction reversed and remanded for retrial or to allow Ramos to admit the transport-for-sale element; harmless-error analysis not controlling; double jeopardy does not bar retrial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378) | Evidence (purse ownership/control, quantity of drugs, scale, baggies, packaging) supports inference of intent to sell | No specific evidence Ramos personally intended to sell; only possession for personal use was proven | Conviction affirmed: substantial circumstantial evidence supported intent to sell; intent may be personal or that someone else will sell it |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (statutory element must be proved to a jury) (announces jury-trial requirement for factual elements)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for constitutional error)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- People v. Wright, 40 Cal.4th 81 (retroactive changes and instructional-error/due-process considerations)
- People v. Figueroa, 20 Cal.App.4th 65 (remand appropriate when evidence excluded at trial would have been relevant under new law)
- People v. Meza, 38 Cal.App.4th 1741 (circumstantial evidence can support possession-for-sale inference)