An individual should not have been convicted both of conspiracy to possess heroin and methamphetamine for sale and of the actual counts of possession of heroin and meth for sale, the Second District Court of Appeal held today in People v. Briones, B195452.
The Attorney General in this case argued that the elements of the drug “conspiracy” — namely, an “an agreement to commit a crime and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement” — had been satisfied when the defendant received the money to buy the drugs, before the substantive possession ever occurred. The court notes, however, that “the conspiracy does not necessarily end on the commission of the first overt act. Instead, conspiracy is a continuing offense while the agreement continues.” In this case, moreover, “the
