P. v. Pipkin
Filed 8/24/06 P. v. Pipkin CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE PIPKIN, Defendant and Appellant. | B186554 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA070634) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip S. Gutierrez, Judge. Affirmed.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Dawn S. Mortazavi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jesse Pipkin (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). We affirm.
CONTENTIONS
Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting, under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b),[1] evidence that defendant committed a prior bad act. First, defendant contends that the prior bad act was not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to support the inference that he harbored the same intent. Second, defendant contends that the evidence of the prior bad act was unduly prejudicial.
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2005, defendant was with a friend who sold drugs. Appellant and his friend were arrested for possession of controlled substances and taken to jail. However, defendant was not charged with possession. On April 27, 2005, defendant was released from jail.
At approximately 6:25 p.m. on April 27, 2005, Pomona Police Department Officers Anthony Cantanese and Brian Hagerty were on duty, driving westbound on the 600 block of Holt Avenue. They were part of the major crimes task force unit, arresting people engaged in dealing and possessing narcotics. Officer Cantanese noticed defendant, with three other individuals, standing on the corner of Paloma and Holt. Officer Cantanese observed that defendant was only interacting with one of the other individuals, and noticed that defendant had an â€
