P. v. Perez
Defendant Uriel Perez contends there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for possession of methamphetamine for sale, possession of a rifle and possession of ammunition. Perez argues that although he was arrested in a motel room where methamphetamine, indicia of drug sales, the rifle and the ammunition were found, it was unreasonable to infer that he possessed any of those items. We reject Perez's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. In light of Perez's incriminating behavior both before he was found in the motel room and after he was discovered there, a jury could reasonably infer his connection to the physical evidence found in the motel room and in turn Perez's culpability for the charged offenses.
Perez also argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for his firearm and ammunition convictions. Because the two crimes were separate and distinct offenses, they were properly punished consecutively.
Comments on P. v. Perez