Is there sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of possession of a Beretta?

Defendant's argument that the record lacks "any fact" to establish possession is overstated. Such factsthe wallet, identification card, citation, and access to the gun were considered by the jury, and in conducting sufficiency of the evidence review, we are guided by the rule that "it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 933.)

Page 8

Defendant's reliance on In re Anthony J. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 718 is misplaced. In Anthony J., the court found insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of possession of a stolen vehicle. (Id. at p. 728.) The court applied the familiar rule that possession of stolen property requires "something more" than mere presence or access, but that "something more" may be rather slight. (People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 224.) Here, defendant is not charged with possessing a stolen Beretta; defendant is charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Even if this standard were appropriate, the evidence previously discussed shows "something more" than mere presence or access.

There is sufficient evidence that defendant exercised control over, and therefore possessed, the Beretta handgun.