P. v. Hudson
Filed 8/3/06 P. v. Hudson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURTIS LEE HUDSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
C048126
(Super. Ct. No. 04F04451)
|
Defendant Curtis Lee Hudson was convicted after a jury trial of sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and the trial court found defendant had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[1] On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his Pitchess[2] motion, abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial, and erroneously found one of the prior prison terms true. We agree only with his last contention and remand for a new trial on the prior prison term.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 31, 2004, Sacramento County District Attorney Investigator James Ross was working with the Sacramento Police Department as an undercover buy officer attempting to make narcotics purchases in the Alkali Flats area. He was driving a pickup truck and accompanied by David Heroux, a recent parolee who was working with law enforcement officers during the buy operation. Heroux's sole role in the operation was to act as â€
