P. v. Davis





Filed 4/27/11 P. v. Davis CA1/2




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN E. DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.

A127034 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 209093)

I. INTRODUCTION
John E. Davis appeals following his conviction by a jury of three counts of possession of heroin, possession while armed with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. The jury also found several enhancement allegations true. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of heroin while armed with a loaded firearm and the arming enhancement alleged as the count 1 possession charge. We will affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
By a first amended information filed on July 23, 2009, and further orally amended on August 31, 2009, the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco charged appellant with possession of a controlled substance (heroin) for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 1), and alleged that during the commission of this offense he possessed 14.25 grams or more of a substance containing heroin (Pen. Code, § 1203.07, subd. (a)(1)), and was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)); possession of heroin while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 2); and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1).) The information also alleged that appellant had two prior drug-related convictions (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11370, subds. (a), (c); 11370.2, subd. (a)(3)).
The evidence presented at trial showed that sometime after midnight on May 14, 2009, appellant rented room 301 at the Sunnyside Hotel on Sixth Street in San Francisco.
Nine days later, on the afternoon of May 23, 2009, San Francisco police arrived at appellant's hotel room with the legal right to search the room, appellant's person, and any vehicles under his care or control. The officers knocked loudly on the door and announced â€