P. v. Worth
Filed 6/30/06 P. v. Worth CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINDA LEE WORTH, Defendant and Appellant. | H029096 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS041824) |
I. INTRODUCTION
A jury was empanelled to try defendant on one count each of felony possession of a controlled substance and misdemeanor petty theft with a prior theft conviction. (Health & Saf. Code § 11377; Pen. Code §§ 666/484.) The jury convicted defendant of the drug possession count but was unable to agree on the theft, and a mistrial was declared as to that count. At sentencing, the court exercised its discretion pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b) to reduce the felony possession count to a misdemeanor and the misdemeanor theft count to an infraction, to which defendant then pleaded guilty. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on three years' probation with certain conditions.
On appeal, defendant argues reversal of the possession conviction is required for the following reasons: (1) the superior court lacked jurisdiction to try her on a felony because no information was filed; (2) the court erred prejudicially in failing to give CALJIC No. 2.01 on circumstantial evidence; and (3) the court erred prejudicially in permitting the prosecutor to impeach her with prior misdemeanor convictions. We affirm.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Target Store's loss prevention agent Jose Avalos testified that on June 12, 2004, he saw defendant switch bar code stickers on five plastic storage containers.[1] After she paid the cashier for the containers, Avalos followed her outside, identified himself as store security, and told her he needed to speak with her inside the office. In front of another store security agent and a female witness, Avalos accused her of switching stickers. She denied doing so. However, when Avalos presented her with Target's standard form for admitting theft of merchandise, he told her he needed â€
