Arnold

People v. Arnold

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 4th 1408·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 2026·2006 Daily Journal DAR 16595·52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 545·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11661
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 2006C050141California2,710 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

In this case we interpret Penal Code section 12001, subdivision (c), which provides that, for purposes of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), “the term ‘firearm’ includes the frame or receiver of the weapon.” We hold that possession of the “frame or receiver” is sufficient, but not necessary, for a section 12021, subdivision (a)(1), violation. We disagree with a reading of People v. Gailord (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1643 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 ] (Gailord) to the extent that such a reading, would suggest a defendant must possess both a barrel and a frame or receiver in order to be guilty of illegally possessing a firearm. Because defendant Kevin Daniel Arnold’s possession of the barrel was undisputed, and only his possession of the frame or receiver is contested, we conclude his section 12021 conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.

In case No. 04-3470, a jury convicted defendant of theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)—count 1), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)—count 3), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)—count 4). It acquitted him of a charge of possession…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.