P. v. Benitez

Filed 3/17/09 P. v. Benitez CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SAMUEL BENITEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
G041201
(Super. Ct. No. FWV034195)
O P I N I O N
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
Raymond L. Haight, III, Judge. Affirmed.
Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and
Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A jury found defendant Samuel Benitez guilty of resisting an officer (Pen.
Code, § 69), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)),
and misdemeanor resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148). The court placed him on three
years’ probation plus 180 days in custody to be served on weekends.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
James Vaughn, the acting supervisor of the county’s crime laboratory,
testified based on notes made by another criminalist that the substance in defendant’s
possession was 0.02 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant objected to this testimony
as hearsay and as violating his right to confrontation. The appeal raises a single issue:
was defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation denied by permitting Vaughn to
testify based on another’s analysis of the substance? Defendant cites Crawford v.
Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 125 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 in support of this
contention.
Defendant acknowledges in his brief that the California Supreme Court
held in People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 605 that reports of testing results are not
testimonial and therefore the admission of such evidence is not prohibited by Crawford v.
Washington. But he notes that the issue is presently before the United States Supreme
Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591, cert. granted March 17, 2008 ___
U.S. ___ 128 S.Ct. 1647, 170 L.Ed.2d 352.
Unless we are otherwise directed by the United States Supreme Court, we
are bound to follow the precedent established by our own Supreme Court. (Auto Equity
Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) We therefore affirm the
judgment herein.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
RYLAARSDAM, J.
WE CONCUR:
SILLS, P. J.
O’LEARY, J.

-- 3 of 3 --