P. v. Spradley 4/30/03 CA2/3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2003 » P. v. Spradley 4/30/03 CA2/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B154544

Case Date: 07/23/2003

Preview:Filed 4/30/03 P. v. Spradley CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY W. SPRADLEY, Defendant and Appellant. _____________________________________ In re B160827 JEFFREY W. SPRADLEY, on Habeas Corpus. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Theodore D. Piatt, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Habeas corpus petition denied. Matthew Alger, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jennifer A. Jadovitz, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA051184) B154544

Defendant and appellant Jeffrey W. Spradley appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. Spradley was sentenced to a prison term of seven years. Spradley contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his Pitchess1 pretrial discovery motion; (2) refusing his request to file a supplemental declaration in support of the Pitchess motion; (3) denying his motion for a continuance; (4) instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 17.41.1; and (5) failing to obtain an adequate waiver of his right to counsel. He further complains that (6) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; and (7) his admissions of prior conviction allegations are invalid because the record does not show they were knowing and intelligent. Finally, in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we consider concurrently herewith, Spradley argues that his counsel was prejudicially ineffective for failing to introduce impeachment evidence. We agree that Spradley's admissions of the prior conviction allegations are invalid and reverse the true findings on the allegations. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Facts. a. Prosecution's case. On November 18, 2000, at approximately 6:20 p.m., Spradley was driving a Ford truck with a cracked windshield. Glendora Police Officer James De Mond determined that the truck's registration had expired, and, due to the cracked windshield and expired registration, initiated a traffic stop. Spradley exited the truck. He was holding a cellular telephone in his left hand, and his right fist was closed. De Mond requested that Spradley get back inside the truck. Before he did so, Spradley placed his closed fist inside the truck bed, out of De Mond's sight. After Spradley reentered the truck, De Mond observed a small plastic bag on the ledge of the truck bed's liner. It contained "a little bit" of a white crystalline substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. An empty, torn plastic bag of a similar type was discovered behind the bench seat in the truck's cab.

1

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). 2

When a backup officer arrived, De Mond advised Spradley that he was under arrest, conducted a pat-down search, and found $800 in Spradley's pocket. The plastic bag contained 0.46 grams of a powder substance that contained methamphetamine. When at the jail approximately one hour after his arrest, Spradley showed signs of being under the influence of methamphetamine. Because his symptoms were severe, he was transported to a hospital and was eventually admitted to intensive care. De Mond testified that, in his opinion, Spradley was under the influence of methamphetamine. b. Defense case. Spradley's girlfriend, Susan Haney,2 was leaving her apartment when she saw that Spradley had been stopped by police. According to Susan, Spradley was holding a cellular telephone in one hand and an object that appeared to be a bottle of Coca-Cola in the other when he reentered his truck. He did not place either hand inside the truck bed area. After Spradley was placed inside a police car, the officers searched the rear area of the truck bed. When Haney asked why Spradley was being arrested, one of the officers informed her that he did not have proper identification. Susan's husband, Barry Haney,3 arrived home in time to see Spradley exiting the truck with his hands in the air. Spradley was holding a Coca-Cola in one hand and a telephone in his other. Barry did not know whether the officer had recovered anything from the truck. 2. Procedure. Trial was by jury. Spradley was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,

Download P. v. Spradley 4/30/03 CA2/3.pdf