Is constructive possession of a deadly weapon sufficient to establish a defendant was armed with the weapon for purposes of resentencing?

Montano correctly states that facts showing constructive possession of a deadly weapon, without more, are not sufficient to establish a defendant was armed with the weapon for purposes of the resentencing exclusion at issue here. "A defendant is armed if the defendant has the specified weapon available for use, either offensively or defensively." (People v. Bland (1995) 10 Cal.4th 991, 997; People v. Blakely (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1051 [" 'Armed with a firearm' has been statutorily defined and judicially construed to mean having a firearm available for use, either offensively or defensively"].) A deadly weapon "can be under a person's dominion and control without it being available for use. For example, suppose a parolee's residence (in which only he lives) is searched and a firearm is found next to his bed. The parolee is in possession of the firearm, because it is under his dominion and control. If he is not home at the time, however, he is not armed with the firearm, because it is not readily available to him for offensive or defensive use. Accordingly, possessing a firearm does not necessarily constitute being armed with a firearm." (People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1030 (Osuna), disapproved on another ground in People v. Frierson, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. ___, fn. 8 [226 Cal.Rptr.3d 582, 591, 407 P.3d 423, 431].)

Page 8