People v. Lee CA3

Filed 5/23/23 P. v. Lee CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C096602

v. (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2020-0012837) WILLIAM DARRYL LEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant William Darryl Lee guilty of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Defendant argues insufficient evidence supports his convictions because the evidence does not show he had possession of the firearm and ammunition. Finding no merit in defendant’s argument, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with one count of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1))1 and one count of possession of

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

ammunition as a convicted felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). In the same information, the prosecution charged codefendant Erica Crockett with purchasing or receiving a firearm as a restricted person. (§ 29825, subd. (a).) Defendant and Crockett were tried jointly. After a mistrial, they were tried in a second trial. Crockett is a not a party in this appeal. Officer David Muser testified at trial that he and his partner responded to a report of a vehicle collision. Officer Muser saw defendant about 250 feet away from an overturned Honda. As the officer approached, defendant walked to the rear passenger side of a silver Ford. Defendant looked at the officers and began fumbling around in his sweatshirt or waistband with his back toward the officers. Officer Muser’s partner, Officer Jack Orosco, said defendant’s elbows were moving as if he were manipulating something near his waist or stomach. The officers could not see defendant’s hands, but one of them heard a loud metallic sound. Officer Muser drew his gun because he thought defendant had thrown a gun. Defendant walked over to Officer Orosco and said he was okay. Officer Muser moved toward the front driver’s side of the Ford and saw codefendant Erica Crockett sitting on the ground on the other side of the car. Officer Muser looked under the Ford and saw a Beretta handgun near the passenger’s side rear door. When he retrieved the gun, it was warmer than the ambient temperature outside, which was approximately 41 degrees. The gun had a magazine and one round in the chamber. The officers detained defendant and Crockett. Officer Muser did not know if any DNA evidence was collected from the gun. In closing arguments, the prosecutor suggested two scenarios. The prosecutor said it was possible defendant had the gun on his person and threw it on the ground when he saw the officers approaching. The prosecutor argued it was also possible that Crockett had the gun on her person, defendant told her there were police officers behind him, and she threw the gun on the ground. In the prosecutor’s view, both scenarios showed defendant had the ability to control the gun, and thus had possession of the gun.