Is there any case law where evidence of a defendant's plan to sell controlled substances was not admissible?

Defendant argues the charged (April) and uncharged (August and September) crimes shared no distinctive similarities, and therefore the evidence was not admissible to show a common scheme or plan. But whether defendant's plan for selling controlled substances was distinctive is irrelevant. "To be relevant, the plan, as established by the similarities between the charged and uncharged offenses, need not be distinctive or unusual. Evidence that the defendant possessed a plan to commit the type of crime with which he or she is charged is relevant to prove the defendant employed that plan and committed the charged offense." (People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 424.) "The circumstance that the uncharged offense occurred after the charged offense does not lessen its relevance in demonstrating the existence of a common design or plan." (Id. at p. 425.)

Page 8