(Super. Ct. No. 10F02985)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , Acting P. J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury convicted defendant Ronnie Demone Crawford of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5--count one)*fn1 and possession of heroin for sale (id., § 11351--count two). The jury found that defendant was not personally armed with a firearm in the commission of counts one and two and was unable to reach a verdict on counts three and four (felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, respectively). The trial court declared a mistrial on counts three and four, which were later dismissed on the People's motion. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that defendant had sustained two prior drug convictions (id., § 11370.2, subd. (a)) and four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 15 years: that is, the midterm of four years on count one, a consecutive one-third the midterm or one year on count two, a consecutive three-year term on each of the two prior drug conviction allegations, and a consecutive one-year term on each of the four prior prison term allegations.
Defendant appeals. He contends (1) insufficient evidence supports the trial court's findings on the two prior drug conviction allegations; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence on count two; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing, and insufficient evidence supports, particular fees. With respect to defendant's first contention, the People concede that remand for retrial is required because the record on appeal does not support the trial court's findings on the prior drug conviction allegations. We reject the concession that remand for retrial is required and conclude sufficient evidence supports the trial court's findings on the priors. With respect to defendant's remaining two contentions, we agree with the People that the issues are forfeited by defendant's failure to object in the trial court.
On May 6, 2010, officers conducted a narcotics search at defendant's home. Officers seized 0.3 grams of tar heroin hidden under the armrest of a couch, 0.48 grams of heroin from the bathroom, 11.92 grams of heroin and 80 grams of cocaine base packaged in multiple baggies, together in a jewelry box in the garage, marijuana in the same jewelry box as well as some marijuana in a car parked in front of the garage registered to someone who did not live in the house, a loaded nine-millimeter handgun and ammunition in the garage, almost $1,700 in cash and packaging materials in a pair of shorts in the master bedroom, a digital scale and a knife with narcotics residue in the master bedroom, baggies with narcotics residue under the bathroom sink, plastic baggies with corners cut off in the trash, and tinfoil pieces with residue in the house and trash. Defendant admitted using heroin and tin foil to smoke it with others who came to the house. When accused of being a "mid-level" dealer, defendant responded, "Two ounces is mid-level dealer? I can't even pay all my bills with what I make."
I. Sufficiency of Evidence of Prior Drug Conviction Allegations
The information alleged two prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)), a 1996 San Joaquin County conviction for violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351 and a 2003 Sacramento County conviction for violation of the same offense. The trial court found both allegations true as well as four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) that had also been alleged.
Defendant contends that insufficient evidence supports the trial court's true findings only on the two prior drug conviction allegations. He argues that the exhibits presented at the bench trial on the priors do not show that he was convicted in 1996 and 2003 of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) for purposes of a three-year enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a).*fn2 Defendant concedes that the exhibits show, for purposes of the prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), that he served a prior prison term for drug convictions.
Although noting that the abstracts of judgment of the 1996 and 2003 section 11351 convictions were introduced at the jury trial on the underlying offenses, the People "reluctantly conclude that the appellate record . . . does not support the trial court's true findings [on the prior drug conviction ...