P. v. Rodriguez
Filed 3/30/06 P. v. Rodriguez CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOAQUIN RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | A110288 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 194540) |
| In re JOAQUIN RODRIGUEZ, on Habeas Corpus. | A112320 |
After a jury trial, defendant Joaquin Rodriquez was convicted of possessing cocaine base for sale, and an allegation the cocaine base weighed 14.25 grams or more was found true. We agree with Rodriquez's contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting into evidence his statements to the police. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Rodriguez was charged with possessing cocaine for sale, together with an allegation that the cocaine base weighed 14.25 grams or more. The following evidence was presented at a jury trial.
On October 13, 2004, Rodriguez became the subject of a police investigation. Six days later, on October 19, Police Officers Lou Barberini and Jacob Fegan, working undercover in plains clothes, went to the Post Hotel. After seeing Rodriguez leave the hotel, Barberini positioned himself at the front door of the hotel, while Fegan remained in the police car. As Rodriguez walked back towards the hotel, Barberini pretended that he was having trouble entering the building. Rodriguez said, â€
