• Home
• Drug Crimes
• Marijuana Charges

Facing Marijuana Charges in California?

Many Marijuana Activities Are Now Legal — But Specific Charges Still Carry Real Criminal Consequences, and the Line Between Legal and Illegal Is Often Contested and Defensible.

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended marijuana charges — including possession for sale (HS § 11359), unlicensed sale/transportation (HS § 11360), unlicensed cultivation (HS § 11358), and manufacturing of concentrates (HS § 11379.6) — in criminal courts across every county in California. Proposition 64 legalized personal use for adults 21 and over, but unlicensed commercial activity, sales to minors, and certain quantities remain serious offenses. Many charges arise at the boundary of legality and are successfully challenged through suppression, personal-use defenses, licensing arguments, and more. Build your defense now.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF FACING MARIJUANA CHARGES:

• Do not make statements to law enforcement or prosecutors without counsel — statements about quantity, purpose, or intent are key evidence and establish the specific elements the prosecution must prove
• Do not assume the charge is minor or that a guilty plea is inevitable — many charges are defensible or eligible for dismissal via suppression or diversion; marijuana sale and transportation felonies carry serious consequences including immigration consequences severe enough to produce deportation
• Preserve all documentation — licenses, receipts, evidence of personal use, or legitimate business operations that place the conduct within the legal framework
• Contact experienced counsel immediately — timing matters for suppression (video evidence is overwritten in 30 to 90 days) and diversion windows

Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174

THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE — WHAT IS LEGAL VS. WHAT REMAINS CRIMINAL

Proposition 64 (2016) legalized recreational marijuana for adults 21 and over — but it created a regulated framework with clear boundaries, not blanket deregulation.

Legal Activities (for adults 21 and over):

• Personal possession: up to 28.5 grams of flower or 8 grams of concentrate
• Personal use in private spaces
• Home cultivation: up to six plants at a private residence
• Purchase from licensed dispensaries

Criminal Activities (still prosecuted):

• Unlicensed sale or transportation (HS § 11360)
• Possession for sale without a license (HS § 11359)
• Unlicensed cultivation beyond personal limits or for commercial purposes (HS § 11358)
• Manufacturing concentrates without a license (HS § 11379.6)
• Sale or distribution to minors (HS § 11361)
• Possession or sale by persons under 21

Note on current enforcement (2026): State licensing is strictly enforced, but federal law still treats marijuana as a Schedule I substance. Federal charges can arise for interstate activity, large quantities, or federal property involvement. Proposition 36 has also affected some repeat hard-drug cases that may involve marijuana mixtures.

Quick Comparison Table:

Call (800) 755-5174 for a free assessment of your specific situation.

KEY DEFENSES IN MARIJUANA CASES

Many charges are successfully defended because the conduct was within legal limits or the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally.

Common Defenses at a Glance:

• Illegal search/suppression: Marijuana odor alone often no longer provides probable cause post-legalization; vehicle and home searches based solely on odor are frequently suppressed
• Personal use vs. sale intent: Quantity and packaging can be consistent with heavy personal use rather than distribution
• Licensing / legal framework: Conduct within Proposition 64 limits — personal quantity, six-plant cultivation, licensed business — is not criminal
• Valid prescription/medical authorization: Where applicable to the specific charge and circumstances
• Suppression of digital evidence (Riley): Warrantless phone searches yielding text messages or photos used for sale intent are challenged under Riley v. California
• Charge reduction or diversion: Many cases reduce to lesser offenses or qualify for PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion

INDIVIDUAL CHARGE EXPLANATIONS — WHAT EACH CHARGE REQUIRES AND HOW IT IS DEFENDED

HS § 11359 — Possession of Marijuana for Sale

Possession for sale without a license is a felony in most circumstances and one of the most important remaining marijuana offenses after Proposition 64. The prosecution must prove the defendant possessed marijuana with the specific intent to sell it without a license — establishing that intent through circumstantial evidence: quantities allegedly beyond personal use amounts, packaging consistent with distribution, scales, multiple phones, large amounts of cash. The defense challenges every piece of that circumstantial evidence with an alternative personal use or legitimate business explanation. A heavy user may possess quantities the prosecution characterizes as distribution-level while using exclusively for personal consumption. The specific quantity, packaging, and circumstances are examined to determine whether the prosecution's sale intent evidence is actually distinguishable from personal use — and in many cases the personal use defense defeats the charge.

HS § 11360 — Unlicensed Sale or Transportation of Marijuana

Sale or transportation of marijuana for sale without a license is a crime — misdemeanor or felony depending on quantity and circumstances. The defense challenges the specific act alleged: was this a sale, or a personal transfer between friends? Was this transportation for sale, or personal transportation within legal limits? Was a valid license in place, and was the license status genuinely in dispute? The licensing question is frequently the most important issue in sale and transportation cases — because conduct entirely legal with a license is a felony without one, and the presence or absence of a valid license is sometimes genuinely contested.

HS § 11358 — Unlicensed Cultivation

Home cultivation of up to six plants for personal use is legal for adults 21 and over under Proposition 64. Cultivation becomes criminal when more than six plants are grown, when the cultivation is for commercial purposes rather than personal use, when the person is under 21, or when the cultivation occurs in a location other than a private residence. The prosecution must prove both that the cultivation exceeded the personal use framework and that no valid license was in place. The defense challenges the quantity — was the count actually above six? — the purpose — was this commercial or personal? — and the location and licensing status. In many cases, the prosecution cannot establish commercial purpose beyond a reasonable doubt when the quantity is near the legal limit and no other indicia of commercial activity are present.

HS § 11379.6 — Unlicensed Manufacturing of Cannabis Concentrates

Manufacturing cannabis concentrates — butane hash oil, wax, shatter, and other extraction products — without a state manufacturing license is a felony. The manufacturing process itself, independent of the quantity produced, carries significant felony exposure because of the fire and explosion hazards associated with butane extraction. The prosecution must prove the defendant was actively manufacturing — not merely possessing the equipment or the finished product — and that no valid manufacturing license was in place. The defense challenges the specific conduct alleged — was this active manufacturing or possession of equipment? — the licensing question, and the constitutionality of the search that produced the evidence.

HS § 11361 — Sale or Distribution to Minors

Providing marijuana to a person under 21 is a crime, with significantly enhanced penalties when the recipient is under 18. The prosecution must prove the defendant knowingly provided marijuana to a minor. The defense challenges the defendant's knowledge of the recipient's age, the specific circumstances of the alleged provision, and whether the defendant took reasonable steps to verify age in a licensed dispensary or legitimate business context.

Federal Marijuana Charges — 21 U.S.C. § 841

Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. Federal marijuana charges arise when alleged distribution crosses state lines, involves federal property, reaches trafficking-level quantities, or is investigated by federal agencies. Federal marijuana trafficking charges carry the same mandatory minimum structure as other federal drug trafficking — 5-year and 10-year minimums triggered by specific quantities — and are defended through the same framework: wiretap suppression, quantity challenges, conspiracy element challenges, and the full federal defense toolkit.

The Most Powerful Defense Across All Charges — Illegal Search and Seizure

The single most frequently successful defense in marijuana cases — across every charge type — is suppression of the physical evidence through a Fourth Amendment challenge. The marijuana is almost always the prosecution's entire case — suppress it, and the prosecution collapses. Post-Proposition 64, marijuana searches have an additional specific complexity: the smell of marijuana no longer automatically provides probable cause in California, because the odor is equally consistent with legal possession. Vehicle searches based solely on marijuana odor are challenged in every case where no other probable cause basis existed — and in many of those cases, the suppression motion succeeds and the charge is dismissed.

MARIJUANA CHARGES AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS

Despite California's legalization, federal immigration law treats marijuana offenses with the same severity as any other controlled substance offense. For non-U.S. citizens, marijuana charges carry immigration consequences that can be catastrophic and permanent — and California's legalization provides no protection whatsoever under federal immigration law.

Federal Immigration Law Does Not Recognize California's Legalization

Under federal law, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Federal immigration law treats a California marijuana conviction identically to a conviction for any other controlled substance offense:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i): A conviction for a controlled substance offense renders a non-U.S. citizen deportable — including a marijuana possession conviction, regardless of California legalization
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II): A controlled substance conviction renders a non-U.S. citizen inadmissible
• 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B): Marijuana sale and transportation convictions constitute aggravated felonies — triggering mandatory deportation with essentially no discretionary relief, even for long-term lawful permanent residents

The Cannabis Industry Employment Warning

Non-U.S. citizens who work in the licensed California cannabis industry — even in a fully licensed, state-compliant operation — may face federal immigration consequences based on their involvement with a federally controlled substance. USCIS and immigration courts apply federal law, not California law — and employment in the cannabis industry, regardless of state licensing, may be treated as evidence of involvement with a Schedule I controlled substance in federal immigration proceedings.

The Admission Warning — What Non-U.S. Citizens Must Never Do

A non-U.S. citizen who admits to using marijuana — even legally under California law — during a USCIS interview, at a port of entry, or in any federal immigration proceeding has made an admission that can trigger inadmissibility findings under federal immigration law independent of any conviction. The absence of a criminal conviction does not protect against the consequences of a voluntary admission of controlled substance use to a federal immigration officer.

What Non-U.S. Citizens Must Do Before Any Plea:

• The immigration consequences of the specific marijuana charge must be analyzed before any plea is entered — including whether the specific charge constitutes a controlled substance offense, an aggravated felony, or both under federal immigration law; California's legalization framework provides no protection
• Every suppression opportunity must be assessed because a suppression dismissal — producing no conviction and no plea — is the most immigration-protective outcome available in any marijuana case; a suppression dismissal involves no guilty plea and eliminates the federal immigration consequence entirely
• No admission of marijuana use should be made to federal immigration officers, at ports of entry, or in any federal proceeding without experienced immigration-aware counsel — because admissions of marijuana use, even regarding legal California conduct, can independently trigger federal immigration inadmissibility findings
• No plea to any marijuana charge should be entered without a full understanding of the federal immigration consequences — which are not reduced or eliminated by California's legalization framework — and a clear assessment of every available defense that could produce dismissal without a plea

Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens is conducted from the very first consultation in every marijuana case.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS MARIJUANA CASES

David Chesley personally evaluates the specific conduct against the legal framework, challenges unconstitutional searches with immediate video preservation, develops personal-use or licensing defenses, and coordinates immigration protection where needed. Southern, Central, and Northern California, every county, every major jurisdiction — available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No hand-offs. No junior associates.

Core strategies pursued immediately:

Legal framework analysis — the specific conduct is analyzed against the Proposition 64 framework to determine whether it fell within the legal parameters; where the conduct was within the legal limits, the charge itself is challenged at the earliest stage.

Suppression assessment with immediate evidence preservation — every search is examined for Fourth Amendment defects including marijuana odor as an insufficient post-legalization probable cause basis; preservation demands issued immediately before video evidence is overwritten.

Intent element challenge — in possession-for-sale cases, every piece of the prosecution's circumstantial sale intent evidence is examined for alternative personal use explanations.

Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens — federal immigration consequences of the specific charge and every available plea analyzed before any plea is entered; suppression pursued as the most immigration-protective outcome.

Diversion and record clearance — where appropriate, diversion programs, charge reductions, Proposition 64 redesignation petitions, and PC § 1203.4 expungement options are assessed and pursued.

Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com

YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.

Many marijuana charges are defensible — because the conduct was within the legal framework, because the search was unconstitutional, or because the prosecution cannot prove the specific elements required. Common resolutions:

• Charge dismissed — conduct within legal framework — quantity, age, and circumstances found within Proposition 64 personal use parameters; charge not legally supported
• Physical evidence suppressed — vehicle search based on marijuana odor found insufficient post-legalization; marijuana suppressed; charge dismissed
• Franks challenge succeeded — warrant affidavit overstated probable cause; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
• Possession-for-sale reduced to simple possession — sale intent evidence insufficient; charge reduced; diversion pursued; no felony conviction
• Riley phone suppression — text messages and photographs suppressed; sale intent evidence eliminated; trafficking charge significantly reduced
• Federal charge defeated — quantity and interstate nexus insufficient for federal mandatory minimum; state charge resolved more favorably
• Cultivation charge dismissed — quantity within six-plant personal limit; commercial purpose not established
• Immigration-safe resolution — suppression produced dismissal without plea; federal immigration consequences avoided entirely

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7

David Chesley personally handles marijuana charge defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because the specific defense in every marijuana case depends on the specific facts, and those facts must be analyzed immediately before evidence is lost and before any plea is entered.

Straight talk, always

Marijuana cases range from situations where the conduct was clearly within the legal framework and the charge should be dismissed — to situations where the search was plainly unconstitutional and suppression produces dismissal — to situations where the prosecution's case is stronger and the focus shifts to minimizing the charge, pursuing diversion, and protecting immigration consequences. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in. No false promises. No sugarcoating.

Post-Proposition 64 expertise — the legal framework and its defenses

Deep understanding of Proposition 64's specific permissions and prohibitions, the specific elements of every remaining California marijuana offense, the Fourth Amendment post-legalization marijuana odor probable cause analysis, the federal immigration consequences that persist regardless of California legalization, and the specific defenses — suppression, personal use, licensing — that produce the best outcomes in marijuana cases — across every region of California.

Flexible payment plans

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a marijuana charge goes without experienced legal representation to pursue the defense their case deserves.

Representative Results:

• HS § 11359 possession-for-sale dismissed — vehicle search based solely on marijuana odor found to lack probable cause post-Proposition 64; marijuana and packaging suppressed; charge dismissed
• HS § 11360 sale charge reduced — sale intent evidence found ambiguous; conduct at boundary of personal gifting versus unlicensed sale; charge reduced to lesser violation; no felony conviction recorded
• HS § 11358 cultivation charge dismissed — quantity found within six-plant personal cultivation limit; commercial purpose not established beyond reasonable doubt; charge dismissed
• Franks challenge succeeded — warrant affidavit in marijuana possession-for-sale case overstated informant reliability and observations; Franks hearing granted; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
• Riley suppression in marijuana trafficking case — phone searched without warrant following arrest; text messages about marijuana transactions and photographs suppressed; prosecution's quantity and buyer evidence eliminated; trafficking charge significantly reduced
• Federal marijuana trafficking charge defeated — quantity and interstate nexus found insufficient to support federal mandatory minimum; state charge resolved more favorably without federal mandatory minimum exposure
• Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen charged with marijuana possession for sale; suppression motion filed and search found unconstitutional; charge dismissed without any plea; federal immigration consequences avoided entirely
• HS § 11379.6 manufacturing charge reduced — defendant found in proximity to extraction equipment; active manufacturing not established beyond reasonable doubt; charge reduced; felony manufacturing conviction avoided

Client Feedback:

"I was charged with possession for sale after a traffic stop. David showed that after Proposition 64, the marijuana smell alone wasn't enough for the search. The evidence was suppressed and the case was dismissed. I didn't realize the law had changed that much." — Anonymous former client

"I was growing plants at home and charged with unlicensed cultivation. David showed I was within the six-plant personal limit and the prosecution couldn't prove commercial purpose. Charge dismissed." — Anonymous former client

"As a non-citizen, David explained immediately that even though marijuana is legal in California, a conviction carries the same federal immigration consequences as any drug conviction. He pursued suppression, got the charge dismissed without any plea, and my immigration status is protected." — Anonymous former client

"I was charged with marijuana manufacturing. David challenged the search warrant under Franks, showed the affidavit overstated what the informant said, got the warrant thrown out, and the charge was dismissed. The right challenge at the right time." — Anonymous former client

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is marijuana completely legal in California — and can I still be charged?

No — not completely. Personal use, possession within limits, and home cultivation of up to six plants are legal for adults 21 and over. Unlicensed sale, possession for sale, commercial cultivation beyond personal limits, and unlicensed manufacturing of concentrates remain serious criminal offenses — misdemeanor or felony depending on the charge and circumstances. Many charges arise at the genuine boundary between legal and illegal conduct — and that boundary is contested, defensible, and frequently misdrawn by law enforcement.

Does the smell of marijuana still allow police to search my car?

Not automatically — and this is one of the most important post-Proposition 64 changes in California Fourth Amendment law. Before legalization, marijuana odor established probable cause because it indicated criminal activity. After legalization, the odor is equally consistent with legal possession — and the smell alone may not establish probable cause to believe criminal marijuana activity is occurring. Vehicle searches based solely on marijuana odor are challenged in every case where no other probable cause basis existed — and many of those challenges succeed, producing suppression and dismissal.

What are the immigration consequences of a marijuana conviction?

Serious and permanent — California's legalization provides no protection under federal immigration law. Federal law treats marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, and a marijuana conviction constitutes a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) — triggering deportability. Sale and transportation convictions constitute aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — triggering mandatory deportation with almost no relief available. Suppression that produces a dismissal without any plea is the most immigration-protective outcome available in any marijuana case — because no conviction and no plea means no federal immigration consequence from the charge.

Can I be charged if I work in the licensed California cannabis industry?

Under state law, licensed operations are protected from state prosecution. However, federal law does not recognize California's cannabis licenses — and non-U.S. citizens working in the cannabis industry, even in fully licensed operations, may face federal immigration consequences based on involvement with a federally controlled substance. Non-U.S. citizens should never admit to marijuana use or cannabis industry employment in federal immigration interviews or at ports of entry without experienced counsel present.

What diversion and record clearance options exist?

Many minor marijuana charges qualify for PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion — producing dismissal upon program completion. Prior convictions for conduct now legal under Proposition 64 may be eligible for redesignation, resentencing, or dismissal under Proposition 64's specific record clearance provisions, in addition to standard PC § 1203.4 expungement. The specific options depend on the specific charge and the specific prior conviction.

Can marijuana charges be expunged or redesignated?

Yes — marijuana convictions for conduct now legal under Proposition 64 may be eligible for redesignation and dismissal under the Proposition 64 record clearance provisions, changing the offense designation to reflect current law and removing the most significant practical consequences. Standard PC § 1203.4 expungement is also available for most marijuana convictions resulting in probation. The specific eligibility is analyzed in the initial consultation.

Are payment plans available?

Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing a marijuana charge goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.

More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174

FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7

Marijuana cases often turn on whether the conduct was within legal limits or whether the search was constitutional — and the evidence that resolves those questions is just as time-sensitive as in any other drug prosecution. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the dashcam footage and body camera footage that could establish the search was based on marijuana odor alone — legally insufficient after Proposition 64 — moves closer to being permanently overwritten on the 30 to 90 day retention cycle before a defense attorney has had the opportunity to review it and file the suppression motion it supports. Every day the specific quantity, packaging, and circumstances alleged as evidence of sale intent go unexamined is a day the prosecution's characterization of personal use quantities as distribution-level quantities goes uncontested — when a defense attorney who understands both the legal personal use limits and the specific defendant's use patterns could be developing the personal use defense that defeats the possession-for-sale felony. Every day a non-U.S. citizen defendant faces a marijuana charge without immigration-specific analysis of the federal consequences is a day a plea appropriate for a U.S. citizen — a minor plea or diversion — moves closer to being entered without the warning that it carries the same federal immigration consequences as any other controlled substance conviction, potentially triggering mandatory deportation that California's legalization framework cannot prevent. Every day a Proposition 64 redesignation petition for a prior marijuana conviction sits unfiled is a day a conviction for conduct now completely legal continues to appear on background checks and impose employment and housing barriers that California law already provides the mechanism to remove.

Don't assume the charge is valid. Don't assume the search was legal. Don't assume the old conviction has to stay on your record. And don't wait. If you are facing any marijuana charge — or if you have a prior marijuana conviction that may be eligible for redesignation or expungement — call now.

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Clear guidance on the specific defenses available in your case.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone facing a marijuana charge goes without the experienced defense their case deserves.

David Chesley handles marijuana charge defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.

Se habla español.

📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com

"Marijuana legalization created a detailed legal framework, but many charges still arise at the contested boundary between legal and illegal conduct. My commitment is analyzing exactly where your specific case falls, identifying every defense — suppression, personal use, licensing, quantity challenges — and pursuing the outcome that protects your record, career, and immigration status." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney