Is there any difference between a prior conviction and a subsequent conviction for possession of methamphetamine?

Though Flores argues the facts of the prior offense were not substantially similar to those of the instant offense, that is not the standard. Only the "least degree" of similarity is required when the evidence is offered to prove intent, and there were ample similarities between the two cases. (People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 402.) In both cases, Flores was the passenger in a vehicle stopped by police and arrested after being found in the possession of a large quantity of methamphetamine. In neither case did police find any other indicia of sales activity, such as packaging materials, scales or pay/owe sheets, on Flores' person or in the vehicle in which he had been riding. However, in neither case did police find any paraphernalia associated with using methamphetamine, such as syringes, glass pipes, etc. These similarities were sufficient to warrant the introduction of this evidence for the limited purpose of establishing Flores' intent to sell methamphetamine and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it.

Page 11

C. Admission of 2008 statements regarding unemployment and having a pregnant girlfriend