People v. Cassano CA2/2

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the evidence

Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support a rational jury’s finding that he possessed the methamphetamine found in the garage. In evaluating this claim, we “‘“‘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.’”’” (People v. Lopez (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1028, 1069.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence and questions of credibility in favor of the verdict, indulge every reasonable inference the jury could draw from the evidence (People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47, 56), and do so whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved. (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.) To convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the People must prove the defendant (1) possessed, (2) a usable amount of a controlled substance, (3) knowing (a) he possessed it and (b) it was a controlled substance. (People v. Busch (1989) 187 Cal.App.4th 150, 161.)…