Skip to content
Name: People v. Ormiston
Case #: A094813
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/22/2003
Subsequent History: Rehg. denied 2/19/03.

Walking while carrying drugs from one place to another qualifies as transportation. Here appellant’s conviction for transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, sec. 11379), was based upon the discovery of meth in his possession as he walked across a parking lot. The crux of the crime of transporting is movement of the contraband from one place to another. (People v. Kilborn (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 998, 1003.) The evidence indisputably established the movement of the meth by appellant from one place to another, walking away from his motel room with three baggies of recently manufactured methamphetamine powder in his jacket pocket to “whatever destination he intended.” For purposes of imposing sentencing enhancement, drug diversion does not constitute release on one’s own recognizance while awaiting trial. A section 12022.1 enhancement thus does not apply when defendant was ordered into drug diversion on his prior drug offense. Being placed in drug diversion is not the functional equivalent of a release on O.R. because further court appearance at subsequent criminal proceedings is not it’s purpose. The primary purpose of diversion is rehabilitation. Unlike O.R., it does not constitute a special custodial status or other form of release of the defendant with a promise to appear.