People v. Veronokis CA3, C080315

Background

Defendant George Veronokis was convicted by a jury of maintaining a place to sell/use heroin (Health & Saf. Code § 11366), possession of heroin for sale, possession of marijuana for sale, furnishing heroin, and two counts of simple possession of heroin; sentenced to 6 years 4 months in prison.
Deputies searched defendant’s residence in Oct 2013 and Feb 2014, finding heroin in baggies, heroin residue on tinfoil, marijuana packaged for sale, small quantities of meth, drug paraphernalia, and cash; deputies opined the drugs were possessed for sale.
At the Oct 2013 search deputies found defendant in the garage with two others and smelled pungent smoke; items consistent with heroin use were present; defendant had heroin on his person.
Defendant made statements to deputies (as reported) admitting he sold heroin to support his habit and was fronted quantities; text and Facebook messages from defendant’s account suggested dealing activity; neighbors observed frequent short visits to defendant’s home.
Defense filed a pretrial Pitchess motion seeking citizen-complaint records for Deputy Nelson alleging fabrication of admissions; the trial court denied the motion without prejudice for failure to present a plausible alternative factual account and the defense did not refile.
On appeal, the court affirmed convictions, held the Pitchess denial was not an abuse of discretion, found substantial evidence supported the furnishing conviction, upheld consecutive sentences (Pen. Code § 654 inapplicable), but ordered correction of clerical sentencing errors in minute order/abstract.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of Pitchess motion for Deputy Nelson personnel records	Prosecutor: defense declaration was conclusory and failed to show plausible alternative facts so no good cause for in camera review	Veronokis: deputy fabricated admissions; personnel complaints would impeach credibility	Denial affirmed — declaration lacked a plausible alternative factual scenario and did not meet Pitchess good-cause requirements
Sufficiency of evidence for furnishing heroin (§ 11352(a))	Prosecution: presence of heroin on defendant, residue, paraphernalia, garage smoke, and defendant’s admissions/texts support inference he furnished heroin to others	Veronokis: no proof the smoked substance was heroin and no direct evidence he furnished it	Conviction sustained — substantial evidence supported an inference defendant furnished the heroin smoked in his garage
Application of Penal Code § 654 to bar separate punishment for furnishing and maintaining a place	Prosecution: maintaining a place and furnishing involve separate intents — ongoing base for sales vs. sharing/smoking on a single occasion	Veronokis: both offenses arose from single intent to furnish heroin	§654 did not apply — court found distinct objectives (ongoing place of sale vs. discrete furnishing) so consecutive terms permissible
Clerical sentencing error in minute order/abstract	n/a (AG conceded error)	Requested correction to reflect oral pronouncement (6 years 4 months)	Court ordered correction — oral sentence controls; written records to be amended

Key Cases Cited

Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974) (procedures for discovery of peace officer personnel records)
City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, 49 Cal.3d 74 (1989) (standard for Pitchess good-cause balancing)
Warrick v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011 (2005) (requirements for Pitchess supporting declaration: propose defenses and articulate materiality)
People v. Sanderson, 181 Cal.App.4th 1334 (2010) (denial of Pitchess where defendant’s denial lacked a plausible alternative factual account)
People v. Thompson, 141 Cal.App.4th 1312 (2006) (Pitchess denial affirmed where declaration failed to present a plausible factual scenario)
People v. Moseley, 164 Cal.App.4th 1598 (2008) (maintaining a place and possession-for-sale may reflect distinct objectives for § 654 purposes)