Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Yeakel CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.11 15.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D087804
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. INF2301160)
v.
PHILIP ROBERT YEAKEL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County,
Randolph Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.
Lisa Ann Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Christopher P. Beesley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Cobi S.
Furdek, Deputy Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted appellant Philip Robert Yeakel of possession of
methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) He was
sentenced to 24 months of formal probation.
Yeakel contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
acquittal because there was insufficient evidence that he knowingly
possessed the methamphetamine and possessed it with the specific intent to
sell it.
We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At 6:43 a.m. one morning in June 2023, police officers were dispatched
to an abandoned house in Riverside County, in response to a caller reporting
that two people had gone inside the house. The house was owned by the
Riverside County Administrator’s Office and had “no trespassing” signs
posted on it. Officers had repeatedly encountered trespassers in the house.
An officer testified that he entered the backyard through an opening
that had been cut into the wooden fence. The officer’s body-worn camera
recorded the entire incident as it unfolded, and the 58-minute body-worn
camera recording was shown to the jury. The officer heard a noise coming
from inside the house. He opened a sliding glass door, lifted a curtain, and
saw Yeakel sitting on a bed in front of a dresser and a backpack. The officer
ordered Yeakel out of the room. No one else was in the house. Officers
arrested Yeakel for trespassing. Yeakel asked for his shoes and backpack.
When the officer walked him back into the house to put on his shoes, Yeakel
identified a backpack, a phone, and some headphones as his. The officer put
Yeakel into the patrol car.
The officer returned to the house to retrieve Yeakel’s requested items.
The phone was on top of the dresser that Yeakel had been facing when
2
officers first encountered him, and the backpack was resting against the
dresser. The dresser had multiple pots, pitchers, and bowls on it. The officer
retrieved the headphones near the phone. As he put the headphones into
Yeakel’s backpack, the officer noticed the end of a plastic baggy inside a jar
on the dresser. He pulled out the baggy and saw that it contained clear
plastic rocks that appeared to be methamphetamine. Officers searched
Yeakel’s backpack and found a digital scale, baggies, a tablet computer, and
an additional cell phone. The closet contained several additional backpacks
and men and women’s clothing. The substance from the baggy tested
presumptively positive for methamphetamine and weighed 217 grams.
Yeakel told officers that he had arrived at the house the night before,
between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. He said the scale in the backpack was his,
and it was for personal use. He denied knowing about the methamphetamine
in the jar.
A police sergeant who had been a narcotics detective testified that an
individual’s possession of a scale, baggies, and more than one cell phone were
all factors that would lead him to conclude that the individual was selling
drugs. He testified that 217 grams of methamphetamine, or 7.5 ounces, was
not a quantity for personal use. The common packaging for
methamphetamine was half an ounce. At the time, in the summer of 2023,
methamphetamine was selling for $120 to $150 per ounce, so the 217 grams
had a street value of about $800.
A criminologist confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine
based on laboratory testing.
The jury convicted Yeakel of possession of methamphetamine for sale.
This appeal followed.
3
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review the denial of a motion for acquittal under Penal Code section
1118.1 using the same standard employed in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a conviction. (People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16,
35.) In applying this familiar standard, we “ ‘ “ ‘ “examine the whole record in
the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses
substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid
value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756,
820.) “ ‘ “ ‘We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact
the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] . . .
[Ultimately,] “if the circumstances reasonably justify the jury’s findings, the
judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also
reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.” [Citation.] We do not
reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness’s credibility.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.)
B. Evidence that Yeakel Knowingly Possessed the Methamphetamine
We conclude substantial evidence was presented at trial from which the
jury could conclude that Yeakel constructively possessed the 217 grams of
methamphetamine found in the jar on the dresser.
The jury received into evidence footage from the arresting officer’s
body-worn camera. The footage showed Yeakel sitting on the bed before his
arrest and showed the location and proximity of the dresser to the bed. The
footage also depicted the many jars and bowls on top of the dresser, the
location of Yeakel’s cell phone and headphones, and the specific jar inside
which the methamphetamine was found. This evidence could reasonably lead
the jury to conclude that from where Yeakel sat at the foot of the bed, the
4
dresser was well within his reach. The jury could conclude that the top of the
dresser was subject to his domination and control, as demonstrated by his
placing his cell phone and headphones atop that same dresser, near the jar
containing the methamphetamine. The jury was instructed with CALCRIM
No. 2302 that “A person does not need to actually hold or touch something in
order to possess it. It is enough if the person has control over it either
personally or through another person. Two or more people may possess
something at the same time.” The evidence was sufficient to support the
jury’s finding. (See People v. Valerio (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 912, 921 (Valerio)
[constructive possession may be satisfied if defendant had the right to
exercise dominion and control over the contraband, or the right to
exercise dominion and control over the place where it was found].)
While circumstantial evidence suggested that, on other occasions and
at other times, unknown individuals may have had access to that dresser, at
the time of his encounter with police Yeakel was the only occupant of the
house, had been at the house since at least midnight the night before, and he
was sitting on the bed facing that dresser, having placed his personal items
on top of the dresser and his backpack at the foot of the dresser. In any case,
that others may have also had dominion or control over the location or the
contraband does not defeat constructive possession by Yeakel. (People v.
Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1276, 1284 [constructive possession may be shown
where the defendant has some control or right to control contraband that is in
the actual possession of another]; Valerio, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d. at 921
[“Conviction is not precluded, however, if the defendant’s right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where the contraband was located is
shared with another.”]; CALCRIM No. 2302 [“Two or more people may
possess something at the same time.”].)
5
Yeakel disputes whether the methamphetamine in the jar was visible
and contends that the People relied on the drugs having been visible as
“foundational” to the People’s theory that Yeakel knowingly possessed the
drugs. We do not reassess the jury’s evaluation of the evidence presented.
The jury viewed the footage showing the dresser and what could be seen on
it, and heard the officer’s testimony. There was substantial evidence to
support its verdict, and the trial court did not err in denying Yeakel’s motion
for acquittal.
C. Evidence that Yeakel Intended to Sell the Methamphetamine
Substantial evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that Yeakel
possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to sell it. The jury heard
that Yeakel’s backpack contained a digital scale, baggies, and a second phone,
and that possession of these items would factor into a police sergeant’s
assessment that an individual was trafficking drugs. The jury also heard
that methamphetamine was commonly packaged in half-ounce doses, that
the 217 grams in the jar represented 7.5 ounces, that such a quantity was not
for personal use, and the methamphetamine had a street value of about $800.
Moreover, the jury was instructed on the lesser included offense of
simple possession, which it rejected. (CALCRIM No. 2304.)
We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict and the
trial court did not err in denying Yeakel’s motion for acquittal.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
CASTILLO, J.
7