Filed 5/6/15 P. v. Mills CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MACK MILLS,

Defendant and Appellant. B255881

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA061795)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County. Eric P. Harmon, Judge. Affirmed.

Carlos Ramirez, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Ge rald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________ _____________2 Defendant and appellant Mack Mills was convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant admitted two prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal C ode section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to a term of four years in pris on. Defendant appeals, challenging only the sufficiency of the evid ence of possession of ammunition. We affirm. “ ‘ “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire reco rd, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reas onable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most fa vorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of ever y fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ ” ( People v. Virgo (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 788, 797.) In this case, the jury was properly instru cted that, as defendant conceded he had suffered a prior felony convic tion, in order to find defe ndant guilty of the unlawful possession of ammunition, it must find that he possessed ammunition and that he knew he possessed the ammunition. (CALCRIM No. 2591.) The evidence of these facts was as follows: In August 2013, defendant was living in his sist er’s garage. One night, he pointed a shotgun at his sister’s neighbors. The following month, defendant’s sister locked defendant out of the garage, but a llowed him to live in an SUV she owned. Around this time, defendant’s sister saw him with a shotgun. More than that, defendant fired the shotgun when standing in his sister ’s driveway. In Janua ry 2014, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies came to defendant’s sister’s house to execute a search warrant to look for the shotgun. De fendant admitted to deputies that he had recently possessed a shotgun, but told them that it had been stol en one month ago. Deputies searched the SUV in which defendant lived. They found several live shotgun shells in the SUV; some were

on the floorboard behind the driver’s seat wher e defendant slept, others were on the rear passenger seat. Defendant was arrested. Th ereafter, his sister cleaned out the SUV, which had been messy. She found more shotgun shells scattered in the vehicle and in the glove compartment.3 This evidence is more than sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant knowingly possessed shotgun shel ls. Defendant lived in the SUV in which shotgun shells had been recovered; he admitted that he had recently possessed a shotgun; and there was evidence that he had fired the shotgun as we ll. Defendant suggests that, as he did not have exclusive possession or control of the SUV, the shells may have belonged to

someone else. Yet defendant’s sister testifie d that she and her mother were the only other

individuals who had access to the vehicle. The shells were not hers. She had never seen her mother with a shotgun or s hotgun shells. The jury could reasonably conclude that, of the three people with access to the SUV, th e one who owned the shotgun shells found

therein was the one who lived in the vehicle and had previo usly fired a shotgun in the driveway.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, J. WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

FLIER, J.