1

Filed 8/24/15 In re D.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Sacramento)

----

In re D.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C078291

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JV131089)

D.P., a 17-year-old minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order sustaining a 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that he possessed a 

concealable firearm. (Pen. Code, § 29610.) Minor claims the People did not present 

substantial evidence to support the finding that he possessed the concealable firearm that 
2

was found in a car in which the minor was a passenger. We disagree and affirm the 

juvenile court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the late afternoon on October 27, 2014, California Highway Patrol Officer 

Frank Archuleta and his partner were on assignment in an unmarked white van when they 

saw a black Honda Accord, occupied by three people, make an unsafe lane change. 

Officer Archuleta and his partner activated their lights and sirens and moved behind the 

Honda. The Honda did not immediately stop and the officers began pursuit. 

During the pursuit, Officer Archuleta saw the occupants of the Honda turning back 

to look at the officers, then “going towards the right of the car and down.” Officer 

Archuleta told his partner, who was driving the van, “they’re either hiding drugs or a 

gun,” though he could not see inside the car. 

After a mile, the Honda stopped. The right front passenger door quickly opened 

and the right front passenger (later identified as minor) set his foot out, attempting to get 

out of the car. The officers immediately approached the Honda, kept the occupants inside 

the car, and told them to put their hands up. Their hands remained in the air, “touching 

the roof,” until the officers had everyone out of the car and handcuffed. 

Additional law enforcement quickly arrived, including Detective Michael Rogers 

of the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department gang unit. Officer Archuleta told Detective 

Rogers that he intended to arrest the driver and tow the car. Accordingly, Detective 

Rogers searched the car. On the front passenger seat, Detective Rogers found a loaded 

revolver wrapped in a black sweater. He found another handgun on the floorboard of the 

right rear passenger seat, and a “wadded up” newspaper containing live ammunition in 

the seat pocket behind the front right passenger seat. 

Minor (who was already a ward of the court) was detained, and the People later 

filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), juvenile wardship 

petition alleging several offenses including possessing a concealable firearm. Following 
3

a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the concealable firearm 

allegation: 

“[I]t is sufficient for petitioner to demonstrate that a weapon, this case a pistol or 

revolver, is in the constructive possession of the minor.

“And the Court does find that given the proximity of one or both weapons that 

were around or on or under the same seat that the minor was observed in, that is, the right 

passenger seat of the black Honda, that petitioner has satisfied their burden as to Count 

Two.

“And the Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that Count Two is true and 

sustains Count Two.” 

At disposition, the juvenile court terminated minor’s dependency status, finding 

delinquency would “best serve the interests of the [minor] and the protection of society,”

and committed the minor to juvenile hall for 90 days. The minor appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Minor contends the People did not present substantial evidence to support his 

conviction for possessing a concealable firearm. Specifically, he contends there was 

insufficient evidence to prove he had the right to control the gun found on the front 

passenger seat. We disagree.

We review the whole record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s 

finding to determine if it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact 

could find beyond a reasonable doubt the minor committed the alleged offenses. (In re 

Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275.) We presume the existence of every fact the 

judge could reasonably deduce from the evidence and indulge in all reasonable inferences 

in support of the finding. (Ibid.)

The juvenile court sustained the allegation that minor possessed a concealable 

firearm based on the doctrine of constructive possession. “To establish constructive 

possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to 
4

control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. (People v. Pena

(1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1083-1084; People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 

1272 [defendant need not physically have the weapon on his person; constructive 

possession established where a person knowingly exercised dominion and control over an 

item].) Possession may be shared with others. (People v. Neese (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 

235, 245.) But mere proximity to the weapon, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence 

of possession. (People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223-224.)” (People v. 

Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417.)

Here, the gun was not found under someone else’s seat. (See People v. Sifuentes, 

supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1414 [gun found in a hotel room under a mattress that was 

not the defendant’s].) It was found in the same seat in which the minor was sitting, until 

the moment he was detained. The gun was wrapped in a bulky sweater, but during the 

officers’ pursuit of the black Honda, Officer Archuleta watched the car’s occupants 

“going towards the right of the car and down.” Based on that evidence, it was reasonable 

for the juvenile court to infer the car’s occupants were actually hiding the contraband 

during the pursuit, including wrapping the gun in someone’s sweater and putting it under 

or behind the minor, while he remained in the passenger seat.

Based on the totality of this evidence, it was reasonable for the juvenile court to 

infer the minor was not merely an innocent passenger in the Honda; but rather, knew 

about the gun and was an active participant in trying to hide the gun from the officers. In 

other words, the minor had access to and control over the gun. We thus conclude the 

People presented sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation.
5

DISPOSITION

The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

RENNER , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

MAURO , J.