P. v. Rodriguez
Defendant appeals his convictions for (1) conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine and conspiring to possess pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1)); (2) manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379.6, subd. (a)); (3) possession of pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11383, subd. (c)(1)); and (4) possession of chemicals to manufacture hydriodic acid or a reducing agent with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11383, subd. (g)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggravated term of seven years for manufacturing methamphetamine. The terms on the remaining counts were either stayed pursuant to section 654 (counts 1 and 3) or imposed concurrently (count 4). A jury also convicted his two codefendants, Pedro Martinez Hernandez and Genero Castro Diaz, but their cases are not before us.
Rodriguez argues the judgment must be reversed because (1) there was not substantial evidence that he intended to manufacture methamphetamine; (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence about his limited involvement in the cleanup of debris from a methamphetamine manufacturing site two years before his arrest; and (3) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the use of this evidence. Court reject each of these arguments.
Court agree with him that the trial court erred in imposing an aggravated term and in failing to stay the sentence for possession of chemicals to manufacture hydriodic acid. ( 654.) Therefore, Court affirm the conviction but remand for resentencing.
Comments on P. v. Rodriguez