P. v. Beck
Filed 2/14/07 P. v. Beck CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FLETCHER BECK, Defendant and Appellant. | F049938 (Super. Ct. No. 29756) OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Hugh M. Flanagan, Judge.
Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Stan Cross, Acting Assistant Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 11, 2005, the Merced County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant Fletcher Beck as follows: count I--transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352) with a prior controlled substance offense (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, 11370.2, subd. (a)) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)).
On October 17, 2005, appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty to the substantive count, and denied the special allegations.
On November 9, 2005, appellant filed a motion to suppress his alleged statements to law enforcement officers on July 22, 2005.
On November 16, 2005, jury trial commenced.
On November 17, 2005, the second day of jury trial, the court granted appellant's motion to suppress his alleged statement to law enforcement and granted other defense motions in limine, including a defense motion to bifurcate trial of the prior controlled substance allegation.
On November 22, 2005, the fourth day of jury trial, both sides rested and the jury returned verdicts finding appellant guilty of the substantive count and finding the street gang allegation to be true.
On November 29, 2005, the court conducted a bifurcated hearing of the remaining special allegation after the district attorney amended the information to allege the prior controlled substance offense occurred in 1994. Based on appellant's admission thereof, the court found the special allegation to be true.
On December 12, 2005, the trial court filed a minute order to clarify the enhancement allegations against appellant. The minute order stated in relevant part:
â€
