People v. Hunt

AGEE, J.

Defendant was convicted by the court, sitting without a jury, of a violation of section 12021 of the Penal Code (possession of revolver by ex-convict) and of a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of heroin). He admitted prior felony convictions of robbery and of possession of narcotics, as charged.

Appellant raises only one point on appeal, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the gun possession conviction. He does not question the validity of the narcotics conviction.

Section 12021 is violated when one “who has been convicted of a felony ... has in his possession or under his custody or control any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person....”

Respondent’s theory is that the gun was in the joint possession of appellant and one Ramus. Appellant states his contention as follows: “While it is true that more than one person may have joint possession of the same article, there is no substantial evidence to support joint possession.”

The evidence.

Appellant was driving his Jaguar sports car at night, along a public street in Santa Cruz. Ramus was seated alongside. Police stopped the car under circumstances not necessary to detail herein.

The seats were of the “bucket” type. A .22-caliber revolver was lying on the floor in front of the seat occupied by Ramus.

Ramus was also an ex-convict. He was charged in a separate action with possession of the same gun and he pleaded guilty.

The evidence supporting appellant’s conviction is that the gun was in a car owned and being driven by him; that the gun was within his immediate reach and was readily accessible to him; that appellant had in his pocket five .22-caliber cartridges which were usable in the gun; that when

[226]

Lieutenant Overton of the Santa Cruz Police Department asked appellant why he was carrying these bullets in his pocket, he made no response but just “shrugged his shoulders”; that when appellant testified in his own defense, his counsel limited the direct examination to whether he had disobeyed any traffic laws just before being stopped by the police;