Error and/or relief
Though we find sufficient evidence to support the convictions, we conclude the evidence does not support the challenged large quantity aggravating circumstances attached to three of the counts.. There were several errors in the abstract of judgment, but they were corrected after the opening brief was filed.
First Holding:
In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the trier of fact might have drawn from the evidence even if the court would have concluded otherwise.
Conflicts and even testimony that is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. Before a verdict may be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence, a party must demonstrate that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction. The same standard of review applies when the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. The standard of appellate review for determining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an enhancement is the same as that applied to a conviction.
Authority:
People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11
People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 419
People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331
People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053
People v. Weddington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 468, 483
Second Holding:
Possession may be actual or constructive. Actual possession means the contraband is in the defendant’s immediate possession or control. A defendant has actual possession when that defendant has the contraband. Constructive possession means the contraband is not in the defendant’s physical possession, but the defendant knowingly exercises control or the right to control the object. Dominion and control is readily found when the controlled substance is discovered in a place such as a defendant’s residence, vehicle, or among his, her, or their personal effects. Exclusive possession is not necessary. A defendant does not avoid conviction if his, her, or their right to exercise dominion and control over the place where the contraband was located is shared with others.
Authority:
In re Daniel G. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 824, 831
People v. Busch (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 150, 162
Third Holding:
Mere proximity to a prohibited item, however, is not sufficient evidence of possession. In Martin, the court concluded the evidence demonstrated the defendant had mere access or proximity when the stolen goods were found in his codefendant’s car without evidence linking the stolen goods to the defendant. In Myles, the evidence was insufficient to establish possession of stolen televisions found in the trunk of a car in which the defendant was a passenger. In Zyduck, the appellate court rejected the argument that the defendant’s mere presence in a car owned and driven by another, in which the stolen property is readily visible, is enough to show possession.
Authority:
People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 696,
People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429
People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 335-336
People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417, disapproved on another ground in People v. Farwell (2018) 5 Cal.5th 295, 304 & fn. 6
Fourth Holding:
The defendant did not forfeit the challenge to the quantity enhancement by failing to object below. As to forfeiture, an objection is generally required to challenge on appeal a trial court’s reliance on an improper factor in imposing a sentence. However, sufficiency of the evidence has always been viewed as a question necessarily and inherently raised in every contested trial of any issue of fact, and requiring no further steps by the aggrieved party to be preserved for appeal. Parties may generally challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because they necessarily objected to the sufficiency of the evidence by contesting it at trial.
Authority:
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353
In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 660
People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596
Fifth Holding:
California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(10) provides a circumstance in aggravation occurs when the crime involved a large quantity of contraband. In light of the testimony of the witnesses, there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the the quantity possessed by the defendant constituted a large quantity.
Authority:
Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(10)
Sixth Holding:
Typically, when part of a sentence is stricken on review, a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. However, the record in this case demonstrates with unusual clarity that remand would be an idle act. The trial court indicated it was going to impose the middle term on all counts except those three on which the jury found the large quantity factor in aggravation. It is clear that but for those findings, it would have imposed the middle term. Having concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support those findings, we modify the judgment to impose the middle term for the affect counts.
Authority:
People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893
People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 432