P. v. Wolfrom

Filed 8/2/06 P. v. Wolfrom CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gerard S. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.

Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lilia E. Garcia,

Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Janelle Marie Boustany for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1. Introduction

The evidence in the record established that defendant Leslie Marie Wolfrom was involved in manufacturing methamphetamine at two separate locations. Based on the evidence, the jury convicted defendant of two counts of manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)) and the court imposed a prison term of six years eight months. In this appeal, defendant raises the following claims: the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a subsequent drug possession charge; insufficient evidence supported her convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine; and the court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence for the second offense.

We conclude that the other act evidence was admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to show defendant's intent and knowledge. As to defendant's claim of insufficient evidence, the items found at both locations amply supported the jury's verdicts. As to defendant's claim of sentencing error, consecutive sentences were appropriate because the evidence indicated that defendant was involved in manufacturing methamphetamine at different times and different locations. We affirm the judgment.

2. Factual and Procedural History

In early January of 2003, defendant moved out of her mother's mobile home at 929 West Foothill (hereafter Foothill) and began renting a house less than a mile away at 392 West Street in Upland. Even after moving, defendant still had some of her property at the Foothill address.

On January 31, 2003, officers from a joint Ontario-Upland narcotics task force went to investigate possible drug activity at the Foothill address. At the time, defendant's mother and stepfather lived in the mobile home with others including Rosanne Wase. After obtaining consent to conduct a search, the officers focused their investigation on the northeast bedroom. A strong chemical odor emanated from the bedroom and the hallway leading to the bedroom. Inside the bedroom, the officers found coffee filters and rubber tubing stained with red phosphorus, a heat source, biphasic liquid, packaging materials, and other items associated with a clandestine methamphetamine lab. A fingerprint taken from one of the bottles containing biphasic liquid belonged to defendant. On the bedroom dresser, the officers also found two photographs of defendant and papers with defendant's name on them.

That same day, the officers also went to the West Street address. The officers found defendant near the back door of the house. They also encountered two others, Dan Ferguson digging in the yard and Rhonda Ringger watering in the same area. Buried in the area, the officers found a flask with tubing, methamphetamine, packaging supplies, a triple-beam scale, and a small gram scale.

As they entered the house, the officers detected a strong chemical odor. The officers found water bottles of biphasic liquids, charcoal lighter fluid, coffee filters, and a hot plate. Inside the house, the officers found a receipt for rubber tubing and a receipt for a gas additive that is commonly used during the manufacturing process. The officers also found a gas bill in defendant's name.

Inside the garage, the officers came across some other suspicious items. Inside a large plastic storage container, the officers found, among other things, a plate with what appeared to be red phosphorous, bottles containing an unknown liquid, and an electric grinder that may have been used to grind pseudoephedrine pills. The container reeked of a strong chemical odor.

After examining the items taken from the Foothill and West Street locations, the criminalist detected the presence of methamphetamine and the precursors or by-products commonly associated with the manufacturing process. The criminalist concluded that the items were being used to manufacture methamphetamine.

One of the officers interviewed defendant at the Upland police station. Defendant admitted that she was attempting to make ephedrine crystals. The officer noted that ephedrine crystals are used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and have no other purpose.

3. Drug Possession Evidence

Before trial, the prosecutor asked to present testimony concerning defendant's subsequent arrest for drug possession on the ground that the evidence was relevant to show knowledge, intent, and the absence of mistake. The trial court noted that the evidence also was relevant to show a common scheme or plan. Over defendant's objections, the court admitted the evidence.

At trial, a detective with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's office testified that, on January 27, 2005, a little over a month before defendant's trial, he arrested defendant for possessing 12.5 grams of methamphetamine. At the time of her arrest, defendant also had an electronic scale. As the officer removed the drugs from defendant's pocket, defendant said, â€