Opinion ID: 2758310
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: duhaney’s california conviction

Text: Duhaney does not dispute that he has a 2001 drug conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11352(a) (“§ 11352(a)”). Section 11352(a) covers a wide range of drug-offense conduct, providing: [E]very person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport . . . any controlled substance . . . shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for three, four, or five years. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a) (emphasis added). This is a divisible statute in that any one of the acts listed—such as importing, selling, or offering to sell— constitutes a drug offense. The record here contains a certified copy of the charging document against Duhaney. Count 1 of the information charged Duhaney in the conjunctive, that is, with having committed all the conduct that violates § 11352(a): 3 Case: 14-10654 Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Page: 4 of 11 On or about March 13, 2001, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime of SALE/TRANSPORTATION/OFFER TO SELL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, in violation of HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 11352(a), a Felony, was committed by ELPHINSTON DUHANEY, who did unlawfully transport, import into the State of California, sell, furnish, administer, and give away, and offer to transport, import into the State of California, sell, furnish, administer, and give away, and attempt to import into the State of California and transport a controlled substance, to wit, COCAINE BASE . . . . (Emphasis added). By using the conjunctive “and,” Count 1 alleged Duhaney did all of the drug conduct charged in that Count 1, which included importing, selling, and offering to sell cocaine base. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. n.1(B)(iv). Count 2 of the information charged Duhaney with, on the same date, “unlawfully possess[ing] for sale and purchas[ing] for purposes of sale cocaine base,” in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11351.5. The record also contains a certified copy of the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s eight-page docket for Duhaney’s criminal case. That eight-page docket contains the court minutes, dated June 22, 2001, which state that Duhaney “PLEADS NOLO CONTENDERE WITH APPROVAL OF THE COURT TO A VIOLATION OF SECTION 11352(A) H&S IN COUNT 01.” The court minutes then reflect that the California court: (1) found “that there is a factual basis for” Duhaney’s plea and accepted Duhaney’s plea; (2) found Duhaney guilty of Count 1; (3) dismissed Count 2; and (4) imposed a prison sentence of nine days, reduced to time served, and placed Duhaney on three years’ formal probation. 4 Case: 14-10654 Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Page: 5 of 11 Under California law, when the charging document alleges the offense was committed in the conjunctive and a defendant pleads to the offense as charged, the defendant admits committing the offense in all the ways alleged. See, e.g., People v. Mendias, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159, 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993); People v. Tuggle, 283 Cal. Rptr. 422, 425-27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991), overruled on other grounds, People v. Jenkins, 893 P.2d 1224, 1233 (Cal. 1995); see also People v. Chadd, 621 P.2d 837, 842 (Cal. 1981) (“As to the merits, the plea is deemed to constitute a judicial admission of every element of the offense charged.”); People v. Palacios, 65 Cal Rptr. 2d 318, 321 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (“A plea of guilty admits every element of the offense charged, all allegations and factors comprising the charge contained in the pleading.” (quotation marks omitted)). Further, under California law, a plea of nolo contendere to a felony offense has the same legal effect as a guilty plea “for all purposes.” Cal. Penal Code § 1016(3); People v. Wallace, 93 P.3d 1037, 1043 (Cal. 2004); People v. Bradford, 939 P.2d 259, 346 (Cal. 1997). Thus, like a guilty plea, a defendant’s no contest plea admits all the elements of the offense as charged. See People v. French, 178 P.3d 1100, 1108-09 (Cal. 2008). After examining certified copies of the information and the court minutes, the district court concluded that Duhaney’s California conviction was a “drug 5 Case: 14-10654 Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Page: 6 of 11 trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1) and overruled Duhaney’s objection to that 12-level increase.