What is the difference between a separate conspiracy for possession of cocaine and one for transportation of cocaine to non-contiguous counties?

We conclude that on October 12 and October 28, 2005, the goal of each day's conspiracy was for Troncoso to drive from Imperial County and deliver cocaine to Los Angeles County. Consistent with that goal, on each day there was, at the most, one conspiracy, and not, as the People contend, a separate conspiracy for possession of cocaine and one for transportation of cocaine to a noncontiguous county. Troncoso's possession of the cocaine and transportation of it were " 'tied together as stages in the formation of a larger all-inclusive combination, all directed to achieving a single unlawful end or result.' " (People v. Morocco (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1449, 1453.) We note that "the conspiracy does not necessarily end on the commission of the first overt act. Instead conspiracy is a continuing offense while the agreement continues." (People v. Briones (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 524, 529.) As a result, any separate conspiracy to

Page 15