Health and Safety Code 11351 is a California statute that makes it a felony to possess a controlled substance with the intent to sell or to purchase controlled substances for purposes of sale. The statute applies to specific categories of controlled substances enumerated in various subdivisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 11054, 11055, and 11056, as well as any controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V that qualifies as a narcotic drug.
The statute's scope encompasses illicit street drugs such as cocaine and heroin, hallucinogenic substances including GHB, peyote, ecstasy, and LSD, along with common prescription opiate drugs such as oxycodone (Oxycontin), hydrocodone (Vicodin), and codeine. Individuals charged under this provision face imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for two, three, or four years.
A conviction under HS 11351 carries a maximum fine of $20,000. The penalties differ substantially from simple possession charges, as convictions under this section render defendants ineligible for drug diversion programs that provide treatment instead of jail time. Probation with up to one year in county jail represents an alternative sentencing option, though felony sentences of 2, 3, or 4 years in county jail remain the standard punishment.
The statute defines "selling" broadly to include exchanging controlled substances not only for money but also for services or anything of value. Prosecutors can impose penalties in connection with each intended sale if they prove the defendant intended to engage in multiple transactions. Legal immigrants and legal aliens face additional immigration consequences, as convictions under this section can lead to deportation.
The prosecution must establish five elements to secure a conviction: the defendant possessed a controlled substance, knew of its presence, knew of the substance's nature or character as a controlled substance, intended to sell it when in possession, and the substance constituted a usable amount. The requirement to prove intent to sell distinguishes HS 11351 from simple possession offenses and elevates the severity of charges and penalties accordingly.
The statute references controlled substances specified in subdivisions (b), (c), and (e) of Section 11054, paragraphs (14), (15), and (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 11055, subdivision (h) of Section 11056, and any controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V that qualifies as a narcotic drug.
Cocaine represents one of the primary narcotics prosecuted under this statute. Opiate-based substances include opium, opiate derivatives, and various prescription opioids when possessed without valid authorization. Codeine falls within the opiate category covered by the statute, along with other opiate-based narcotics commonly associated with possession for sale charges. The prosecution applies this provision frequently to cases involving these substances due to their classification as controlled narcotics under California's drug schedules.
Heroin constitutes a controlled substance explicitly covered under HS 11351, representing one of the most commonly charged narcotics under this provision. Methamphetamine cases, however, are typically charged under Health and Safety Code 11378 rather than HS 11351. This distinction exists because different statutes apply to various drug categories, with methamphetamine falling under separate legal provisions despite being a controlled substance. The statutory framework separates these substances into distinct categories for prosecution purposes.
The statute encompasses hallucinogenic substances including LSD, GHB, peyote, and ecstasy (MDMA). These substances fall within the controlled substance classifications referenced in the statutory subdivisions. GHB, peyote, ecstasy, and LSD all qualify as hallucinogens subject to prosecution under this provision. The inclusion of these substances extends the statute's reach beyond traditional narcotics to encompass drugs that produce psychoactive effects through different chemical mechanisms.
Prescription medications become subject to HS 11351 when possessed without valid prescriptions and with intent to sell. Oxycodone (Oxycontin), hydrocodone (Vicodin), and codeine represent common prescription opiates prosecuted under this statute. Additional prescription medications covered include Xanax, methadone, and fentanyl. The prosecution must demonstrate that defendants possessed these prescription drugs without valid authorization and intended to distribute them to individuals lacking legitimate prescriptions. This application extends criminal liability to pharmaceutical substances when diverted from their intended medical use into illegal distribution channels.
Prosecutors must establish five elements beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. First, the defendant unlawfully possessed a controlled substance. Second, the defendant knew of its presence. Third, the defendant knew of its nature as a controlled substance. Fourth, the substance was in a usable amount. Fifth, the defendant possessed it with the specific intent to sell it. Useless traces or residue cannot support a conviction, as the quantity must be sufficient for actual consumption, though it need not be enough to affect the user.
Actual possession refers to physical and direct control over the narcotics. The drugs must be on the defendant's person, such as in pockets, backpacks, briefcases, or clothing. This type of possession establishes immediate control and dominion over the controlled substance without requiring additional proof of access or authority over a location.
Constructive possession extends beyond physical contact to encompass control and dominion over narcotics in locations the defendant controls. The drugs may be located in the defendant's home, vehicle, drawer, closet, safe, or storage unit. Prosecutors must prove the defendant had knowledge of the drugs' presence and the ability to exercise control over them. When drugs are found in shared residences, common areas, or vehicles with multiple passengers, the prosecution faces the burden of proving control beyond a reasonable doubt. Joint possession occurs when two or more individuals share control over the narcotics, with each person potentially held responsible.
Intent to sell is proven through circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof. Prosecutors rely on specific indicators including quantities inconsistent with personal use, scales and packaging materials, large amounts of cash in small denominations, baggies divided into distribution portions, text messages or communications about sales, and frequent short-term visitors. For instance, possessing 50 grams of methamphetamine typically triggers sales allegations because prosecutors argue the quantity exceeds personal use. Similarly, ten separate baggies each containing small amounts suggests distribution rather than a single baggie with the total amount. Digital scales, cash, and cell phone messages serve as circumstantial indicators, though defense attorneys challenge these interpretations by presenting alternative lawful explanations.
Violating HS 11351 constitutes a felony offense punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for two, three, or four years. Courts may impose a maximum fine of $20,000 alongside the prison sentence. In certain circumstances, defendants may receive probation with up to one year in county jail as an alternative to the standard felony sentence. When prosecutors demonstrate that the defendant intended to engage in multiple sales transactions, courts can impose these penalties separately for each intended transaction.
Aggravating factors substantially increase the sentencing range beyond standard penalties. Possessing or purchasing cocaine base for sale carries three, four, or five years in county jail along with a maximum $20,000 fine. Cases involving heroin, cocaine base, or cocaine for sale trigger additional weight-based enhancements that add extra prison time to the base sentence. Defendants who receive additional sentences under these weight enhancements face fines reaching up to $8,000,000.
Prior criminal history affects sentencing calculations under this statute. Individuals convicted of possessing or purchasing controlled substances for sale who have at least one prior felony conviction for another California drug crime involving more than mere personal use receive an additional and consecutive three-year term for each prior felony conviction. This enhancement applies cumulatively, meaning multiple prior convictions result in correspondingly longer sentences.
Non-citizens face severe immigration consequences beyond criminal penalties. Convictions under HS 11351 can result in deportation, denial of re-entry to the United States, and visa ineligibility. These immigration ramifications apply to legal immigrants and legal aliens regardless of their length of residence or status within the country.
Defendants charged under this provision cannot access drug diversion programs that offer treatment-based alternatives to incarceration. The statute's classification as a possession for sale offense rather than simple possession eliminates eligibility for rehabilitative programs available to individuals charged with personal use offenses. This restriction means convicted defendants must serve their sentences without the option of completing drug treatment programs in lieu of jail time.
Several legal defenses can challenge charges under this statute, depending on the specific circumstances of the arrest and evidence collection.
Fourth Amendment violations provide grounds for suppressing evidence obtained through unlawful searches. Defendants may file motions under Penal Code 1538.5 to exclude evidence when law enforcement conducted warrantless searches without probable cause, exceeded the scope of authorized warrants, or detained individuals without legal justification. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion, searches prolonged beyond their lawful purpose, and defective warrants lacking probable cause all constitute violations. If courts grant suppression motions, cases often result in dismissal or significant charge reductions.
Challenging the intent element focuses on demonstrating that substances were for personal use rather than distribution. Defendants with addiction issues may possess larger quantities for personal consumption rather than sale. The absence of recorded sales, surveillance evidence, or direct testimony weakens the prosecution's ability to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Expert testimony on use patterns, tolerance levels, and purchasing behavior can establish alternative explanations for quantity and packaging.
Defendants cannot face conviction without proof of knowledge regarding the drugs' presence or narcotic character. This defense applies particularly when substances are discovered in shared vehicles, roommates' closets, or storage units with multiple access points. The absence of fingerprints, communications referencing controlled substances, and credible witness testimony support lack-of-knowledge claims. Shared access situations require prosecutors to prove awareness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Constructive possession requires proof of both knowledge and control over the location where drugs were found. When multiple individuals had access to vehicles, residences, or storage areas, prosecutors must establish dominion and control beyond reasonable doubt. Passengers in vehicles and roommates in shared apartments do not automatically possess drugs found in those spaces without additional evidence linking them to the substances.
The fundamental distinction between these two statutes centers on prosecutorial burden regarding intent. HS 11350 addresses simple possession for personal use, whereas HS 11351 criminalizes possession with intent to sell. Both charges can arise from identical factual circumstances involving drugs found on a person, in vehicles, or at residences, yet result in vastly different legal consequences.
HS 11350 qualifies as a misdemeanor following the passage of Proposition 47, carrying penalties up to one year in county jail and fines reaching $1,000. This classification renders defendants eligible for drug diversion programs that provide treatment-based alternatives culminating in case dismissal. In contrast, HS 11351 constitutes a straight felony ineligible for reduction to misdemeanor status and carries no eligibility for Proposition 47 relief.
The prosecution bears no obligation to prove actual sales occurred under HS 11351, only that the defendant intended to sell the controlled substances. Prosecutors construct intent cases through circumstantial evidence including drug quantity, packaging materials, scales, cash, and communications indicating sales. Defense attorneys challenge these charges by demonstrating evidence consistency with personal use rather than distribution.
When prosecutors cannot prove intent to sell beyond a reasonable doubt, courts may convict defendants of the lesser included offense of personal possession under HS 11350. This reduction carries significant practical consequences, as HS 11350 convictions permit entry into diversion programs generally unavailable to those charged under HS 11351. The eligibility for treatment-based programs represents a critical distinction between these statutes, affecting both immediate sentencing outcomes and long-term criminal record implications.
Every case deserves
a strong defense
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed sed augue mauris. Integer placerat et massa in pharetra. Cras diam mi, tincidunt nec erat in, mollis sagittis sapien. Quisque ultrices id diam quis dapibus. Nullam ac erat ac justo convallis fringilla nec ut purus. Vivamus volutpat orci et lacus tempus fringilla. Morbi sed erat vel nisi blandit placerat eget eget sapien.
Nulla eget tristique leo. Proin dignissim tellus nec risus congue fringilla. Donec interdum purus sem, a finibus ante efficitur ornare. Quisque ullamcorper pharetra lacus, vitae pharetra magna pretium vel. Donec aliquet purus sed pellentesque mollis. Pellentesque vestibulum eget massa in facilisis. Phasellus eu risus non metus consectetur facilisis. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. In vitae fermentum enim, in vulputate diam. Aliquam malesuada urna suscipit, elementum sapien ac, posuere nisl.
Integer malesuada leo quis erat imperdiet aliquet. Aliquam ut eros vulputate, pharetra nulla quis, bibendum justo. Suspendisse justo leo, efficitur vel ex nec, fermentum condimentum dui. Suspendisse ut massa sit amet ligula mattis viverra. Sed sed turpis ligula. In vulputate, enim sit amet laoreet blandit, elit nisl fermentum odio, nec convallis libero dolor nec tellus. Donec rutrum nibh non nibh tincidunt, non iaculis diam dignissim. Sed nec massa pellentesque, gravida sem id, lobortis nisi. Integer turpis metus, sagittis vitae metus vel, feugiat congue nibh.
Vestibulum sed arcu eleifend ipsum eleifend semper nec sed est. Nam dapibus massa ut scelerisque egestas. Integer at elit faucibus elit molestie luctus. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nulla neque, rhoncus sit amet ultricies ac, sagittis ac nibh. Praesent mattis ultricies nisi vitae efficitur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc ullamcorper non est vitae faucibus. Duis pellentesque magna fermentum leo molestie, et dapibus diam dictum. Vivamus eu purus ullamcorper, consequat diam quis, blandit eros. Cras ultrices finibus metus, eget tempor sem euismod quis. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus.
Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Fusce hendrerit arcu vel nisi bibendum, nec accumsan nunc sollicitudin. Mauris eu pretium ante, at rhoncus metus. Nunc dignissim turpis vel libero commodo imperdiet. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Donec gravida arcu eu turpis lobortis, vitae bibendum lectus egestas. Phasellus gravida eleifend ligula, eu sagittis diam rhoncus ut. Suspendisse fringilla ipsum eu purus tincidunt ornare. Vestibulum tincidunt enim eu ante mattis interdum. Integer molestie, est quis tincidunt dapibus, ex diam ultrices enim, nec vestibulum lectus orci non elit. Etiam vestibulum justo erat, ut vulputate urna dapibus vitae. Fusce ultrices lacus ac eros scelerisque, non malesuada neque ultrices. In pretium mi sed eros pharetra, eu molestie felis consectetur.
This page was reviewed and approved by William S. Kroger, a leading criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles. Mr. Kroger has decades of experience defending clients in both state and federal courts. He is recognized for his strong trial skills and dedication to protecting the rights of the accused. Throughout his career, he has successfully represented clients facing a wide range of serious criminal charges. His personalized defense strategies are designed to achieve the best possible outcome in every case. Clients trust Mr. Kroger for his knowledge, commitment, and proven results.
He is also an active member of respected legal organizations, including the American Bar Association and the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers. With his expertise and reputation, William S. Kroger is regarded as one of California’s top defense lawyers.
"*" indicates required fields
