P.

DISCUSSION

A. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Defendant contends substantial evidence does not support his conviction for

carrying a concealed dirk or dagger because the weapon was not capable of being

readily used. We disagree.

“When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, „“[t]he court must

review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine

whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable,

credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citation.]‟ [Citations.]” (People v. Clark (2011)

52 Cal.4th 856, 942-943.) “We „“„presume in support of the judgment the existence of

every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.‟” [Citations.]‟

[Citation.]” (Id. at p. 943.)

Former section 12020, subdivision (a) made it a crime to carry a concealed dirk

or dagger. “Dirk or dagger” was defined as “a knife or other instrument without a

handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great

bodily injury or death. A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited

3…