P. v. Ayala
Filed 4/5/06 P. v. Ayala CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN AYALA et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B184110 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA277926) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marsha N. Revel, Judge. Affirmed.
Dennis L. Cava, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Juan Ayala.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Miguel Sanchez.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Yun K. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________
Juan Ayala (Ayala) and Miguel Sanchez (Sanchez) were convicted by jury of the sale or transportation of heroin, and Sanchez was also convicted of possession for sale of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a), 11351).[1] Each admitted a prior conviction pursuant to section 11370.2, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 11370.2(a)). Each was sentenced to seven years in prison, including a three-year section 11370.2(a) enhancement. They appeal from the judgments.
Ayala contends that he was denied his federal constitutional right to due process because the trial court did not truly exercise its discretion as to whether to dismiss the three-year section 11370.2(a) enhancement in the interest of justice.
Sanchez contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew of the narcotics character of the drug or had the specific intent to sell; and (2) that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion to dismiss the three-year section 11370.2(a) enhancement. He joins in the arguments of Ayala to the extent such arguments benefit him.
We affirm.
FACTS
We view the evidence in accordance with the usual rules of appellate review. (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.) At approximately 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 2005, undercover Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Saragueta was participating in a narcotics buy operation in the area of Spring and 5th Streets, an â€
