• Home
• Drug Crimes
• Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (HS 11350)

Charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance (HS § 11350) in California?

Even a First-Time Possession Charge Can Mean Jail, a Permanent Drug Record, Immigration Consequences, and Professional License Issues — But Strong Defenses and Diversion Often Lead to Dismissal.

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended HS § 11350 possession of a controlled substance charges — through PC 1000 diversion, suppression motions, knowledge and possession challenges, and trial — in criminal courts across every county in California. HS § 11350 covers possession of cocaine, heroin, and other Schedule I and II controlled substances without a valid prescription. Most simple possession cases are misdemeanors post-Proposition 47, but the consequences are serious and permanent. For many defendants, diversion produces a complete dismissal with no conviction ever recorded. Build your defense now.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED UNDER HS § 11350:

• Do not make statements to law enforcement or prosecutors without counsel — statements about your knowledge of the substance or its presence are the prosecution's most important evidence and can establish the elements they need to prove
• Do not plead guilty or accept any plea before diversion eligibility is fully assessed — a guilty plea permanently forecloses PC 1000 and other dismissal options that may have produced a clean record
• Preserve documentation of the arrest circumstances — any witnesses, evidence relevant to your knowledge of the substance or its presence, and any treatment you have already started
• Contact experienced counsel immediately — timing matters for diversion windows, suppression evidence preservation, and immigration analysis before any plea

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

THE STAKES ARE REAL

HS § 11350 convictions create lifelong barriers — even as misdemeanors:

• Up to 1 year in county jail plus fines and fees
• Permanent drug record on every background check — highly disqualifying for healthcare, education, finance, and government employment
• Professional license reporting, discipline, or denial — mandatory for all licensed professionals
• Immigration consequences — deportation risk for non-U.S. citizens; HS § 11350 is a controlled substance offense under federal immigration law
• Loss of federal financial aid and potential public housing eligibility consequences

Note on current law (2026): Most simple possession remains a misdemeanor, but Proposition 36 allows felony treatment-mandated charging for some repeat hard-drug cases — with potential dismissal pathways upon successful treatment.

Diversion or suppression often avoids these consequences entirely.

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

WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE — AND HOW TO CHALLENGE IT

To convict under HS § 11350, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. You possessed a controlled substance — actually or constructively
2. You knew of its presence
3. You knew its nature as a controlled substance
4. It was in a usable quantity — not mere residue
5. It was in fact a listed controlled substance — proven by laboratory analysis

Each element is independently challengeable. Defeating any one defeats the charge entirely.

Key Defenses at a Glance:

• Diversion (PC 1000 DEJ and alternatives): Complete a program → charge dismissed, no conviction
• Illegal search / suppression (PC § 1538.5): Unconstitutional search → evidence excluded → case often dismissed
• Lack of knowledge: You didn't know it was there or didn't know what it was
• No usable quantity: Trace or residue amounts are insufficient for conviction
• Valid prescription: Possession authorized by a licensed physician
• Constructive possession challenge: No dominion or control in shared spaces

Quick Diversion Comparison for HS § 11350 Cases:

Call (800) 755-5174 for a free assessment of every available pathway.

INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH DEFENSE WORKS

Defense One: Diversion — PC 1000 DEJ and Alternative Programs

For most first-time HS § 11350 defendants — and many defendants with prior records who qualify — diversion through PC 1000 Deferred Entry of Judgment is the best available outcome. The guilty plea is held without being entered as a conviction. The defendant completes an approved drug education program — typically 12 to 18 months — and upon successful completion, the plea is withdrawn, the charge is dismissed, and no conviction is ever recorded. Under PC § 1000.4, the defendant may thereafter deny being arrested for the offense in most circumstances. HS § 11350 is one of the specifically enumerated qualifying offenses under PC § 1000(a).

For defendants who do not qualify for PC 1000, alternative pathways — PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion, Proposition 36, drug court, military diversion under PC § 1001.80, and mental health diversion under PC § 1001.36 — are assessed and pursued in every case. PC 1000 ineligibility does not end the diversion analysis.

Critical immigration note for non-U.S. citizens: The PC 1000 guilty plea itself may constitute a federal immigration conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) even if the case is later dismissed. No-plea diversion alternatives are assessed for every non-U.S. citizen defendant before any plea is entered.

Defense Two: Illegal Search and Seizure — PC § 1538.5 Suppression

In most HS § 11350 cases, the controlled substance was discovered during a search — of the defendant's person, vehicle, home, or belongings. If that search was unconstitutional, the evidence it produced is suppressed under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Without the physical substance, the prosecution has no case — and dismissal typically follows immediately.

Common suppression grounds in HS § 11350 cases include: warrantless vehicle searches lacking probable cause, warrantless home entries without valid exigent circumstances, consent obtained under coercive circumstances or from a person who was unlawfully detained, searches exceeding the scope of a warrant, unlawful traffic stops as the foundation of the search, and warrantless cell phone searches in violation of Riley v. California. A Franks v. Delaware challenge to the warrant affidavit is pursued in every case where the affidavit's factual foundation appears inaccurate — because a warrant invalidated through a Franks challenge suppresses all evidence seized under it.

Defense Three: Lack of Knowledge — The Defendant Did Not Know the Substance Was Present

HS § 11350 requires proof the defendant knew the controlled substance was present. A defendant who was unaware of the substance's existence — in a borrowed vehicle, in a bag carried for someone else, in a shared residence, or in any location where others had access — did not have the required knowledge element and is not guilty. The lack of knowledge defense is developed through evidence of the circumstances of the discovery, the defendant's relationship to the location, the presence of others with access, and any evidence consistent with genuine lack of awareness.

Defense Four: Lack of Knowledge of Nature — The Defendant Did Not Know What the Substance Was

Even where the defendant knew a substance was present, HS § 11350 requires proof the defendant knew it was a controlled substance. A defendant who genuinely believed the substance was a legal supplement, an authorized medication, or any substance other than an illegal controlled substance did not have the required knowledge of nature. This defense applies in cases involving substances not commonly recognizable in their specific form, transactions the defendant believed were legitimate, and prescription medications the defendant genuinely believed were valid.

Defense Five: Usable Quantity — Trace Amounts Are Not Possession

HS § 11350 requires that the controlled substance be present in a usable quantity — an amount sufficient to use as a drug. A trace amount, a residue, or a quantity so small it could not realistically be used does not satisfy this element. In borderline quantity cases, the usable quantity requirement is challenged through the laboratory analysis, the specific amount measured, and the applicable legal standard for the specific substance.

Defense Six: Valid Prescription

Possession of a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription from a licensed California physician is a complete defense to HS § 11350. The valid prescription defense requires documentation of the prescription, evidence it was valid at the time of the alleged possession, and that the quantity possessed was consistent with the prescription. Cases where the defendant genuinely believed they had valid authorization — even if technically incorrect — are analyzed under both the valid prescription defense and the lack of knowledge defense.

Defense Seven: Constructive Possession Challenge

Constructive possession requires that the defendant had dominion and control over the location where the substance was found. Where the substance was found in a location accessible to multiple people — a shared vehicle, a shared residence, a common area — and where the evidence does not establish the defendant's exclusive access or control, the constructive possession element is challenged. Multi-occupancy vehicle cases, shared residence cases, and common area cases are the most frequent contexts for successful constructive possession challenges.

Defense Eight: Laboratory Analysis Challenge

The prosecution must prove through laboratory analysis that the substance seized is in fact the controlled substance alleged. Chain of custody violations, analytical methodology errors, contamination, or misidentification all provide grounds to challenge the laboratory analysis. Where the analysis is the primary evidence connecting the defendant to the specific substance, independent expert review is assessed.

HS § 11350 AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL ANALYSIS FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS

HS § 11350 is among the most immigration-consequential misdemeanor convictions available in California criminal law — and for non-U.S. citizens, the immigration analysis must be conducted from the very first consultation before any plea is entered.

The Federal Immigration Consequences of HS § 11350

Under federal immigration law, an HS § 11350 conviction is:

• A crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) — triggering inadmissibility and deportability consequences
• A controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) — triggering mandatory deportation for non-U.S. citizens convicted after admission to the United States

A single HS § 11350 misdemeanor conviction — even probation with no jail time — can trigger mandatory deportation proceedings, mandatory detention pending removal, bars to naturalization, and permanent bars to re-entry. These are among the most serious immigration consequences available from any misdemeanor conviction in California.

The PC 1000 Guilty Plea and Federal Immigration Risk

For non-U.S. citizens, the PC 1000 DEJ guilty plea itself — entered at the beginning of the diversion process before any program requirements are completed — may constitute a conviction for federal immigration purposes under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). Under that definition, a conviction exists for immigration purposes when the alien has entered a guilty plea and a judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on liberty — regardless of whether the case is later dismissed under California law. This means even a successful PC 1000 completion may not fully protect a non-U.S. citizen's immigration status — because the guilty plea entered at the start of the process may have already triggered federal immigration consequences independent of the California dismissal.

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

• The immigration consequences of the specific HS § 11350 charge must be analyzed before any plea is entered — including the specific controlled substance alleged and its immigration classification
• The immigration consequences of the PC 1000 guilty plea specifically must be analyzed — not just the ultimate California court disposition
• No-plea diversion alternatives — including PC § 1001.95 judicial diversion, which the court can grant without requiring a guilty plea — must be assessed as potentially immigration-safer alternatives to PC 1000
• Suppression motions that produce dismissal without any plea are frequently the most immigration-protective outcome in cases where the search was unconstitutional — because a suppression dismissal involves no plea of any kind

Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens is conducted from the very first consultation in every HS § 11350 case. The immigration consequences of this specific charge are too serious and too permanent to address only after the most consequential plea decision has already been made.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS HS § 11350 CASES

David Chesley personally handles every HS § 11350 case — assessing diversion, suppression, and substantive defenses simultaneously from day one. 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:

Diversion eligibility assessed from day one — PC 1000 eligibility analyzed for the specific charge and prior record; where PC 1000 is unavailable, every alternative pathway assessed and pursued.

Search and seizure challenge identified and evidence preserved immediately — every search examined from the first consultation; dashcam, body camera, and surveillance footage preservation demands issued before footage is overwritten.

Knowledge element examined on specific facts — the circumstances of discovery, the defendant's relationship to the location, the presence of others with access, and every available piece of evidence bearing on actual knowledge.

Immigration analysis for every non-U.S. citizen defendant — immigration consequences of the charge and every available plea analyzed before any plea is entered; no-plea alternatives identified and pursued where appropriate.

All defenses pursued simultaneously — diversion, suppression, and knowledge challenges are not mutually exclusive; the strongest defense on the specific facts is identified while all others remain available.

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

YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.

The prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt — and most HS § 11350 cases have at least one element that is genuinely contestable. Common resolutions:

• PC 1000 DEJ completed — HS § 11350 charge dismissed; guilty plea withdrawn; arrest sealed; no conviction recorded; license protected
• Suppression motion granted — traffic stop found unlawful; vehicle search unconstitutional; controlled substance suppressed; charge dismissed immediately
• Franks challenge succeeded — warrant affidavit contained material inaccuracies; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
• Knowledge element defeated at trial — heroin found in borrowed vehicle; prosecution unable to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt; not guilty verdict
• No-plea diversion for non-U.S. citizen — PC 1000 plea found to carry federal immigration risk; PC § 1001.95 judicial diversion pursued; charge dismissed without guilty plea; immigration status protected
• Constructive possession challenge succeeded — cocaine found in multi-occupant apartment common area; exclusive control not established; charge dismissed before trial
• Felony charge correctly reduced to misdemeanor — prior conviction incorrectly characterized as qualifying felony; Proposition 47 analysis applied; charge reduced; felony consequences eliminated
• Mental health diversion granted — defendant with PTSD whose substance use was connected to underlying condition; PC § 1001.36 diversion pursued; charge dismissed; root cause addressed

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7

David Chesley personally handles HS § 11350 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 diversion windows close fast, suppression evidence is overwritten quickly, and the decision of whether to enter any plea must be made with full information before the court date arrives.

Straight talk, always

HS § 11350 cases range from situations where PC 1000 produces a clean dismissal relatively straightforwardly — to situations where the search was unconstitutional and suppression is the strongest remedy — to situations where the evidence is strong and the focus must shift to the best available diversion or plea arrangement. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in. No false promises. No sugarcoating.

Multi-front strategy from day one

Diversion, suppression, and knowledge challenges are identified and assessed simultaneously. Many defendants who could have pursued a suppression motion defaulted to diversion because no one assessed the search. Many non-citizens entered an immigration-risky PC 1000 plea because no one identified the no-plea alternative. Every available defense is pursued from the first consultation.

Flexible payment plans

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone charged with HS § 11350 goes without experienced legal representation to pursue the defense their case deserves.

Representative Results:

• PC 1000 DEJ completed — HS § 11350 cocaine possession; 18-month drug education program completed; guilty plea withdrawn; charge dismissed; arrest sealed; nursing license application approved; no mandatory board reporting required
• Suppression motion granted — HS § 11350 cocaine possession; traffic stop found to lack reasonable suspicion; vehicle search unconstitutional; cocaine suppressed as fruit of illegal stop; charge dismissed immediately
• Franks challenge succeeded — search warrant for residence where cocaine was found contained material factual inaccuracies; Franks hearing held; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
• Knowledge element defeated at trial — heroin found in shared vehicle; prosecution unable to prove defendant knew heroin was present; not guilty verdict returned at trial
• No-plea diversion for non-U.S. citizen — lawful permanent resident charged with HS § 11350; PC 1000 plea found to carry federal immigration consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i); PC § 1001.95 judicial diversion pursued instead; charge dismissed without guilty plea; deportation consequences avoided
• Constructive possession challenge succeeded — cocaine found in multi-occupant apartment common area; prosecution unable to establish defendant's exclusive control; charge dismissed before trial
• Felony HS § 11350 charge correctly reduced to misdemeanor — prior conviction incorrectly characterized as qualifying felony enhancement; Proposition 47 analysis applied; charge reduced to misdemeanor; felony consequences including state prison exposure eliminated
• Mental health diversion granted — defendant with PTSD whose substance use was connected to the underlying condition; PC § 1001.36 mental health diversion pursued and granted; treatment program completed; charge dismissed; arrest sealed

Client Feedback:

"I was charged with cocaine possession and panicked about my nursing license. David identified PC 1000, made sure I was eligible before any plea was entered, guided me through the entire 18-month program, and the charge was dismissed with no conviction. My license application was approved. I had no idea this outcome was possible." — Anonymous former client

"The search was illegal. I was stopped for a minor traffic issue and my car was searched without any real reason. David showed the stop and the search were both unconstitutional, suppressed the cocaine evidence, and the case was dismissed immediately. No program, no plea, no record." — Anonymous former client

"I am a non-citizen and David explained at our very first meeting that even the PC 1000 guilty plea could affect my immigration status even if the case was later dismissed. He found a different pathway — judicial diversion — that didn't require any guilty plea. The charge was dismissed and my immigration status is protected." — Anonymous former client

"They found heroin in a car I had borrowed. I genuinely had no idea it was there. David built the knowledge defense, showed the jury I didn't know the heroin existed, and I was acquitted. It was the most stressful thing I have ever been through and I am grateful for the rest of my life." — Anonymous former client

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is HS § 11350 — and what controlled substances does it cover?

HS § 11350 is California's primary possession statute for Schedule I and II controlled substances without a valid prescription. Covered substances include cocaine and cocaine base (crack), heroin and other opiates, codeine and morphine without a valid prescription, peyote, GHB, and other Schedule I and II controlled substances. Methamphetamine is charged under HS § 11377. Marijuana is charged under HS § 11357. The specific substance determines the specific defense strategy — because different substances carry different diversion eligibility, different immigration classifications, and different knowledge and possession challenges.

Is HS § 11350 a misdemeanor or a felony?

Following Proposition 47 (2014), HS § 11350 is a misdemeanor for most defendants — up to 1 year in county jail. It remains a felony for defendants with certain prior convictions specified in the statute, including serious felonies listed in PC § 667(e)(2)(C)(iv) and prior sex offender registration requirements under PC § 290. An incorrect felony charge based on a mischaracterized prior conviction is challenged directly — and correcting an improper felony charge eliminates state prison exposure and all additional felony collateral consequences.

Can I get diversion for an HS § 11350 charge?

Yes — HS § 11350 is one of the specifically enumerated qualifying offenses under PC § 1000 DEJ. For defendants who meet the prior record requirements, PC 1000 produces a complete dismissal with no conviction recorded. For defendants who do not qualify for PC 1000, PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion, Proposition 36, drug court, military diversion, and mental health diversion are all assessed. PC 1000 ineligibility does not end the diversion analysis.

What are the immigration consequences of an HS § 11350 conviction?

Serious and potentially permanent. HS § 11350 is both a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) — triggering mandatory deportation for non-U.S. citizens convicted after admission. Even probation with no jail time satisfies the federal immigration conviction requirement. The PC 1000 guilty plea itself may trigger these consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) even if the case is later dismissed. Immigration analysis must be conducted before any plea is entered — and no-plea alternatives must be assessed for every non-U.S. citizen defendant.

Can the evidence be suppressed?

Often yes — and a successful suppression motion in an HS § 11350 case typically produces an immediate dismissal, because without the physical substance the prosecution has no case. If the search that produced the controlled substance was unconstitutional — warrantless vehicle search lacking probable cause, warrantless home entry, coerced consent, unlawful traffic stop — the evidence is excluded under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Every search in every HS § 11350 case is examined for constitutional defects from the first consultation.

What if I didn't know the substance was there?

Lack of knowledge is a complete defense to HS § 11350 — the prosecution must prove you knew the controlled substance was present and knew what it was, beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant who did not know the substance existed — in a borrowed vehicle, in someone else's bag, in a shared residence — did not commit possession under California law. The knowledge defense is developed through evidence of the circumstances of the discovery, others' access to the location, and every available fact consistent with genuine lack of awareness.

How long does PC 1000 diversion take?

Typically 12 to 18 months from enrollment to completion — including drug education classes, periodic check-ins, and drug testing. After successful completion, the petition for dismissal is filed and the dismissal typically enters within a few weeks. The full process from initial plea to final dismissal generally takes 12 to 24 months depending on the county and program.

Are payment plans available?

Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone charged with HS § 11350 goes without experienced legal representation to pursue the defense their case deserves. 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

Don't plead guilty before every defense and diversion option is explored. A dismissal with no conviction is often achievable — but the window to pursue it closes at the moment a guilty plea is entered, and other evidence that wins these cases disappears just as fast. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the PC 1000 diversion window moves closer to a plea date at which a guilty plea is entered without anyone having assessed whether PC 1000 was available and whether it was the right pathway for this defendant's specific situation — including their immigration status and professional license exposure. Every day the search that produced the controlled substance goes unexamined is a day the dashcam footage, body camera footage, and surveillance footage that could establish the constitutional violation — and produce a suppression dismissal without any plea or program — moves closer to being permanently overwritten and permanently lost. Every day a non-U.S. citizen defendant faces an HS § 11350 charge without immigration-specific analysis of the controlled substance offense consequences and the PC 1000 guilty plea risk is a day the most consequential immigration decision in their case moves closer to being made without the information and the no-plea alternative assessment that could protect their status entirely. And every day a licensed professional faces an HS § 11350 charge without a defense attorney identifying the diversion pathway that produces no conviction is a day the mandatory reporting event that a PC 1000 dismissal would have avoided moves closer to occurring.

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 tailored to your specific facts — including diversion eligibility, suppression analysis, immigration risks, and licensing consequences.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone charged with HS § 11350 goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.

David Chesley handles HS § 11350 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

"HS § 11350 charges are serious, but they are highly defensible. Diversion, suppression, or element challenges often produce a clean dismissal. My commitment is pursuing every available defense from day one so you avoid a conviction that could follow you for life." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney