Filed 4/21/14 P. v. Thomas CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN THOMAS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B250558

(Super. Ct. No. SA082183-01)

(Los Angeles County)

Jonathan Thomas appeals a judgment revoking his probation after the trial 

court conducted a probation revocation hearing and found that he possessed 

methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) We conclude, among other 

things, that the trial court's finding is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. 

FACTS

On February 11, 2013, Thomas pled no contest to transporting and selling a 

controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) The trial court 

"suspended" imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years. A 

probation condition required that he "not use or possess any narcotics, dangerous or

restricted drugs or associated paraphernalia." Four months later Thomas was arrested for 

violating this probation condition.

At the probation revocation hearing, Probation Officer Alfred Burruel 

testified that on the morning of June 6, 2013, probation officers entered the residence of 
2

probationer Virgil Gulley, Jr. because his "G.P.S. monitoring bracelet" was "pinging."

During a "protective sweep" of the residence, they saw Thomas sleeping on the floor in 

the bedroom of the home. Thomas was on probation with "search" conditions. Burruel 

said there was a duffle bag in a closet which had a "sliding" door, "five to six feet away 

from where Mr. Thomas was laying." The duffle bag "contained numerous plastic 

baggies" of "a white crystallized substance resembling methamphetamine." The size of 

the bedroom was "10 by 15" feet and it had one closet. A probation officer found a 

digital scale in a dresser drawer "five to seven feet away" from Thomas.

Vamari Gulley (Gulley) was also in the bedroom. Gulley testified that he 

had lived at the residence since 1993. He shared the bedroom with Thomas who was his 

cousin. Thomas had been there for "a day" and he "doesn't usually stay" there. Gulley 

testified that he did not own the duffle bag or the digital scale. He said, "[A] lot of people 

come and go and stay at [the] house," but they do not "bring stuff to spend the night."

Deputy Sheriff Michael Prottung testified that when he entered the 

bedroom, the duffle bag was on top of the dresser, and the dresser was inside the closet. 

In addition to the narcotics, the duffle bag also contained "items that were consistent with 

someone who is staying somewhere other than home." Prottung said the duffle bag 

contained "several pair of underwear, socks, T-shirt, hair care, cream, and a toothbrush."

"[T]here was an outfit that would be basically for one day." Thomas told Prottung that he 

did "not live there."

Thomas did not testify at the probation revocation hearing. His trial 

counsel argued that Gulley's testimony was "pretty self-serving," and "[Gulley] knows 

that he could be in trouble for narcotics and of course he's going to deny . . . that those 

drugs are his or he has any knowledge of the drugs or the scale." 

The trial court found Thomas had violated his probation conditions. It said 

Gulley "was credible" and the duffle bag did not belong to him. It said, "There's every 

reason to believe that this bag belongs to the defendant who's sleeping nearby. . . . The 

defendant is traveling. There's a bag that's typical of any person who travels near him."

The court revoked probation and sentenced Thomas to three years in county jail.
3

DISCUSSION

Substantial Evidence

Thomas contends there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that 

he violated a probation condition by possessing methamphetamine. We disagree.

A trial court may revoke probation where it "has reason to believe that the 

person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation." (People v. Urke (2011) 

197 Cal.App.4th 766, 772.) "We review a probation revocation decision pursuant to the 

substantial evidence standard of review . . . and great deference is accorded the trial 

court's decision . . . ." (Id. at p. 773.) "The role of the appellate court in reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence is limited." (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138.) 

We review the record in the light "most favorable to the judgment." (Ibid.) We do not 

weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of the witnesses. (People v. Belcher (1961) 

189 Cal.App.2d 404, 407.) 

"The essential elements of unlawful possession of a controlled substance 

are 'dominion and control of the substance in a quantity usable for consumption or sale, 

with knowledge of its presence and of its restricted dangerous drug character. Each of 

these elements may be established circumstantially.'" (People v. Martin (2001) 25 

Cal.4th 1180, 1184.) "All surrounding facts and circumstances may be considered in 

determining knowing possession of narcotics . . . ." (People v. Schumacher (1967) 256 

Cal.App.2d 858, 865.) 

"The inference of dominion and control is easily made when the contraband 

is discovered in a place over which the defendant has general dominion and control: his 

residence . . . , his automobile . . . , or his personal effects . . . ." (People v. Jenkins

(1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 579, 584, citations omitted.) "Exclusive possession is not 

necessary. A defendant does not avoid conviction if his right to exercise dominion and 

control over the place where the contraband was located is shared with others." (People 

v. Rushing (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 618, 622.) "[T]he fact that other persons had access to 

the premises in which the narcotic was found does not negative a finding of joint 

possession and control." (People v. Roberts (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 722, 726.) 
4

But "proof of opportunity of access to a place where narcotics are found, 

without more, will not support a finding of unlawful possession." (People v. Redrick

(1961) 55 Cal.2d 282, 285.)

Thomas contends the evidence only shows that he had access to a place 

where narcotics were found. He claims the trial court could not draw a reasonable 

inference to support its finding that he possessed the duffle bag that contained the 

narcotics. We disagree. 

From Gulley's testimony, the trial court could reasonably infer that there 

were only two occupants of the bedroom--Gulley and Thomas, and that the duffle bag did 

not belong to Gulley. Gulley testified he did not own a duffle bag. Thomas claimed

Gulley's testimony was self-serving and that Gulley lied about not owning that bag. But 

the trial judge expressly found Gulley was credible. The trial court exclusively decides 

the credibility of the witnesses. (People v. Belcher, supra, 189 Cal.App.2d at p. 407.) 

From Prottung's testimony, the trial court could infer that the duffle bag 

contained items for someone who was travelling and did not live there. Those items 

included underwear, socks and a toothbrush. Thomas was visiting. He told Prottung that 

he did not live there. Gulley said Thomas had been there for "a day." Prottung testified 

that the bag contained "an outfit that would be basically for one day." The trial court 

accepted the prosecution's claim that "the only one who would need a duffle bag" would 

be Thomas. The bag was "five to six feet away from where Mr. Thomas was laying."

Thomas was no stranger to narcotics. His history included a prior recent 

conviction for transporting and selling a controlled substance. Burruel testified the duffle 

bag contained "small baggies with the meth." There was a digital scale five to seven feet 

from Thomas. Prottung testified the scale was small, lightweight, and "would easily fit 

inside of that duffle bag." There was a "white residue" on the scale. Gulley testified that 

he did not own that digital scale, and the trial court found that testimony credible.

Burruel testified that a probation officer also saw "a black replica handgun" inside a shoe 

box "to the left of Mr. Thomas." It was "five to seven feet away" from him.
5

Thomas cites to evidence that he claims supports his position. He views the 

police investigation to be incomplete. He notes, among other things, that the prosecution 

did not present any fingerprint or DNA evidence and that he denied owning the bag. But

at this stage, the issue is not whether some evidence favors the defense, it is only whether 

substantial evidence supports the judgment. Thomas cites to the part of Gulley's 

testimony where Gulley said other people visited the residence. But the trial court could 

reasonably reject any inference that the duffle bag belonged to them because Gulley also 

testified that those people did not "bring stuff to spend the night." We have reviewed 

Thomas's remaining contentions and we conclude he has not shown error. The evidence 

is sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
6

Mark E. Windham, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Steven A. Brody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. 

Maxwell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Seth McCutchen, Deputy Attorney 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.