People v. Edwards CA4/1

── People v. Edwards CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 P. v. Edwards CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D086037 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD305970) HAROLD LEE EDWARDS, JR., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION A jury found Harold Lee Edwards, Jr. guilty of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 1) and possessing cocaine base for sale (id., § 11351.5; count 2). The court imposed a three-year prison term on count 1, a concurrent two-year term on court 2, and stayed the sentence pending Edwards successfully completing three years of formal probation. Edwards contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could consider evidence of other uncharged sales of methamphetamine to show intent, motive, lack of mistake, and common plan. He also asserts his sentence for either count 1 or count 2 should have been stayed under Penal Code1 section 654. We agree with both parties that the sentence on one of these counts must be stayed. The sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the base term under the current language of section 654. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. BACKGROUND A San Diego police officer conducting surveillance in a high-narcotics area noticed Edwards sitting near a fence with a woman whom the officer recognized from prior law enforcement contacts in the same area. The officer photographed what he described as a typical “hand-to-hand” drug transaction—the woman handed Edwards cash and Edwards gave her a clear plastic bag containing a white substance. After this exchange, a man, later identified as Rigoberto S., sat next to Edwards and spoke with him. A second man then approached Edwards and Rigoberto, handed Rigoberto some cash, and received a substance from Edwards. The substance appeared to be “crystal,” or methamphetamine. The officer opined that Rigoberto was acting as the facilitator in the drug transaction between Edwards and the second man. The officer directed additional officers to contact the three individuals. Officers detained Rigoberto and found $2 in cash on his person. Officers also arrested the woman; she had a pill bottle 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 containing a white powdery substance later determined to be 0.4 grams of cocaine base. When police arrested Edwards he had $589 in cash in his right front pants pocket—one $100 bill, one $50 bill, and the remainder in $1, $5, $10, and $20 denominations. In his left front pants pocket, Edwards carried a brown plastic bindle containing a clear plastic bag with a white powdery substance, along with another bag containing a crystalline material. These substances were later determine