Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Sims CA3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: C102418

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (24)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 2/27/26 P. v. Sims CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

THE PEOPLE, C102418

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23F5449)

v.

KYLE RICHARD SIMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Kyle Richard Sims guilty of 39 offenses, many involving
the possession and sale of drugs, committed on multiple dates. On appeal, defendant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting six of these convictions from three
occurrences, including the aggravating circumstance he possessed a large quantity of
contraband attached to three of those convictions. He also contends the abstract of
judgment must be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment
and amended to include four additional days of conduct credit. The People agree
defendant’s abstract must be corrected and that he is entitled to additional conduct

1
credits, but disagree the evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of the offenses
and aggravating circumstances he challenges.
We conclude the evidence does not support the challenged large quantity
aggravating circumstances but is otherwise sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdicts.
Because the record clearly reflects the trial court would have imposed the middle term for
the count in which it imposed the upper term, remand would be an idle act, and we
modify the judgment accordingly. After the opening brief was filed, the trial court issued
an amended abstract of judgment that corrected the errors to defendant’s credits and
sentence the parties noted in briefing, thus those issues are moot. The judgment is
affirmed as modified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Because defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting six of his
39 convictions, we detail the evidence relevant to only the six challenged convictions.
In October 2020, Shasta County Sheriff’s Detective Travis Ridenour searched a
garage where defendant and his girlfriend were living. Directly underneath the bed
where defendant and his girlfriend slept, Detective Ridenour found a metal box with
drugs, including methamphetamine and heroin. Detective Ridenour also found digital
scales, plastic bags, used and unused syringes, drugs packaged in small quantities, and
over $1,000 in small bills. During the search, defendant’s girlfriend began crying and
admitted to Detective Ridenour the drugs were her drugs. Despite defendant’s
girlfriend’s admission, she was unable to confirm with Detective Ridenour where the
drugs were found or the contents of the metal box.
In December 2020, Detective Ridenour searched defendant after he arrived at a
home Detective Ridenour knew had connections to drug use and sales. During the
search, Detective Ridenour found a large amount of money in several denominations,
including small bills, and a pouch with two digital scales, syringes, 3.7 grams of
methamphetamine in a single bag, and a large quantity of heroin in multiple bags. In

2
Detective Ridenour’s opinion, the quantity of the methamphetamine was not
unreasonable for personal use. Still, Detective Ridenour believed defendant’s possession
of the drugs, money, and scales indicated defendant’s intent was to sell the drugs in his
possession. Detective Ridenour also testified the typical dose of heroin or
methamphetamine for an average user is 0.1 grams for seven hours of intoxication.
In September 2021, Detective Ridenour saw defendant leave a house he knew had
connections to drug use and sales and get into the back seat of a car. During a later
search of the car, Shasta County Sheriff’s Deputy Marcus Miyasato found multiple bags
containing methamphetamine and one bag containing 1.7 grams of heroin. In Deputy
Miyasato’s opinion, defendant’s possession of the heroin was for the purpose of sale
because it matched the weight of a common unit for street sale and was located with other
drugs packaged for sale.
Based on the evidence above, and relevant to defendant’s issues on appeal, the
jury found defendant guilty of possessing heroin (count 16) and methamphetamine
(count 18) for sale, as well as possessing an injection device (count 19) during the
October 2020 search; possessing for sale and transporting for sale methamphetamine
during the December 2020 search (counts 22 & 23); and possessing for sale heroin during
the September 2021 search (count 44). The jury further found true the aggravating
circumstance defendant’s possession of methamphetamine during the December 2020
search and heroin during the September 2021 search constituted a large quantity of
contraband. Based on all the guilty verdicts and true findings, the trial court sentenced
defendant as a second-strike offender to a total term of 50 years eight months in prison,
including an upper term based on the large quantity aggravating circumstance for his
possession for sale of methamphetamine during the December 2020 search.
Defendant appeals.

3
DISCUSSION
I
Defendant’s Sufficiency Of The Evidence Challenges
Defendant raises several sufficiency of the evidence claims regarding the
convictions detailed above and whether the prosecution adequately demonstrated various
elements of the possession offenses and large quantity aggravating circumstances. We
address each contention in turn.
“In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to
review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether
it discloses substantial evidence—that is, 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. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) “ ‘An appellate court
must accept logical inferences that the [trier of fact] might have drawn from the evidence
even if the court would have concluded otherwise.’ ” (People v. Halvorsen (2007)
42 Cal.4th 379, 419.) “ ‘ “ ‘Conflicts and even testimony [that] is subject to justifiable
suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the
trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the
facts upon which a determination depends.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Beck and Cruz (2019)
8 Cal.5th 548, 627.)
Before a verdict may be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence, a party must
demonstrate “ ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence
to support [the conviction].’ ” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) The same
standard of review applies when the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence.
(People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) “The standard of appellate review for
determining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an enhancement is the same as
that applied to a conviction.” (People v. Weddington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 468, 483.)

4
A
Sufficient Evidence Demonstrated Defendant’s
Possession Of Drugs Found In The October 2020 Search
Defendant contends the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating the
possession element for three crimes charged in connection with the October 2020 search
of defendant’s bedroom, i.e. possession of heroin for sale (count 16), possession of
methamphetamine for sale (count 18), and possession of an injection device (count 19).
We disagree.
“Possession may be actual or constructive. Actual possession means the
[contraband] is in the defendant’s immediate possession or control. A defendant has
actual possession when [that defendant] has the [contraband]. Constructive possession
means the [contraband] is not in the defendant’s physical possession, but the defendant
knowingly exercises control or the right to control the object.” (In re Daniel G. (2004)
120 Cal.App.4th 824, 831.) Dominion and control is readily found when the controlled
substance is discovered in a place such as a defendant’s residence, vehicle, or among his,
her, or their personal effects. (People v. Busch (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 150, 162.)
“ ‘Exclusive possession is not necessary. A defendant does not avoid conviction if his[,
her, or their] right to exercise dominion and control over the place where the contraband
was located is shared with others.’ ” (Id. at p. 161.) Mere proximity to a prohibited item,
however, is not sufficient evidence of possession. (People v. Sifuentes (2011)
195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417, disapproved on another ground in People v. Farwell (2018)
5 Cal.5th 295, 304 & fn. 6.)
The evidence established the controlled substances and injection device were
found under a bed in a garage defendant and his girlfriend lived in and used as their
home. Contrary to defendant’s contention, possession of any given contraband is not
limited to just one person and can be held jointly. (People v. Busch, supra,
187 Cal.App.4th at p. 161.) Indeed, here, defendant and his girlfriend exercised joint

5
dominion and control over the space where the contraband was found given it was under
their bed in their residence. This is enough to demonstrate constructive possession of the
contraband by defendant. (See People v. Saldana (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 443, 455
[constructive possession of drugs shown where the defendant jointly occupied the
bedroom where drugs were found].)
Defendant disagrees, arguing the evidence demonstrated his girlfriend possessed
the contraband and he was merely in close proximity to it. He points to his girlfriend’s
admission to officers that she owned the contraband and Detective Ridenour’s obvious
bias in his investigation. But whether defendant’s girlfriend’s testimony should be
believed over Detective Ridenour’s testimony regarding his investigation is a credibility
question reserved for the jury. (People v. Beck and Cruz, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 627.)
The evidence shows defendant’s girlfriend was unable to provide details regarding the
contraband when asked. This, along with the circumstances of the contraband’s
discovery, make it a reasonable inference that the drugs found in the shared space did not
belong to defendant’s girlfriend and instead belonged exclusively to him, i.e., the only
other occupant of the home.
Moreover, cases concluding the evidence demonstrated merely proximity, as
opposed to possession, are distinguishable. For example, in People v. Martin (1973)
9 Cal.3d 687, 696, the court concluded the evidence demonstrated the defendant had
“mere access or proximity” when the stolen goods were found in his codefendant’s car
without evidence linking the stolen goods to the defendant. Similarly, in People v. Myles
(1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429, the evidence was insufficient to establish possession of
stolen televisions found in the trunk of a car in which the defendant was a passenger.
Finally, in People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 335-336, the appellate court
rejected the argument “that [the] defendant’s mere presence in a car owned and driven by
another, in which the stolen property is readily visible, is enough to show possession.”
As opposed to these cases, where the defendants did not exercise dominion or control

6
over the space where the contraband was found, defendant did exercise dominion and
control over the garage and the bed where the contraband was found.
Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdicts defendant possessed
the heroin, methamphetamine, and injection device discovered during the October 2020
search.
B
Sufficient Evidence Demonstrated Defendant’s Intent To Sell
The Drugs Found In The December 2020 And September 2021 Searches
Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate he intended to
sell the methamphetamine found during the December 2020 search (counts 22 & 23), as
well as the heroin found during the September 2021 search (count 44). We disagree.
“Unlawful possession [or transportation] of a controlled substance for sale requires
proof the defendant possessed the contraband with the intent of selling it and with
knowledge of both its presence and illegal character.” (People v. Meza (1995)
38 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1745-1746.) “The crimes can be established by circumstantial
evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.” (Ibid.) “In cases
involving possession of [controlled substances], experienced officers may give their
opinion that the narcotics are held for purposes of sale based upon such matters as the
quantity, packaging and normal use of an individual; on the basis of such testimony
convictions of possession for purpose of sale have been upheld.” (People v. Newman
(1971) 5 Cal.3d 48, 53, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Daniels (1975)
14 Cal.3d 857, 862.) In most circumstances, “it is for the jury to credit such opinion or
reject it.” (People v. Harris (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 371, 374-375.)
But in some circumstances, an expert’s opinion that narcotics are possessed for
sale, “may not be held to be substantial evidence to support the conviction.” (People v.
Hunt (1971) 4 Cal.3d 231, 237.) As our Supreme Court explained in Hunt: “ ‘ “The
chief value of an expert’s testimony in this field, as in all other fields, rests upon the

7
material from which [the expert’s] opinion is fashioned and the reasoning by which [the
expert] progresses from his[, her, or their] material to his[, her, or their] conclusion . . . it
does not lie in his[, her, or their] mere expression of conclusion.” (Italics added.)
[Citation.] In short, “Expert evidence is really an argument of an expert to the court, and
is valuable only in regard to the proof of the facts and the validity of the reasons
advanced for the conclusions.” (Italics added.)’ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Bassett
(1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 141.)
For the December 2020 search, defendant was discovered with 3.7 grams of
methamphetamine in a single bag, along with heroin stored in multiple bags. Detective
Ridenour testified he believed defendant’s possession of these drugs was for the purpose
of sale because defendant possessed them with a large amount of money in several
denominations and digital scales. Similarly, the September 2021 search yielded a single
bag of heroin weighing 1.7 grams, along with a larger amount of methamphetamine
distributed among several bags. Deputy Miyasato testified he believed the heroin was
possessed for the purpose of sale because it was in a common unit for street sale and was
located with other drugs packaged for sale.
Defendant argues these facts do not demonstrate sale because the
methamphetamine from the December 2020 search and the heroin from the September
2021 search were in small quantities indicative of personal use. He argues the presence
of the other drugs in sellable quantities cannot transform drugs meant for personal use
into drugs meant for sale. Not so. Defendant does not point to authority linking an
inference of intent to sell exclusively to the quantity of drugs possessed, and we have
found none. Instead, the rule is that the intent to sell can be inferred from all the evidence
relevant to the defendant’s intent and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. (People v.
Meza, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1745-1746.)
Here, and as the officers testified, other facts demonstrated defendant’s intent
besides the quantity of drugs in his possession. Indeed, defendant possessed other drugs

8
in addition to the challenged drugs and all were packaged for sale. The quantity of heroin
defendant possessed during the September 2021 search was packaged in a common unit
for street sale. Further, the circumstances of defendant’s searches are indicative of sales.
In December 2020, defendant arrived at a house known for drug use carrying digital
scales, a large amount of cash, and drugs packaged for sale. In September 2021,
defendant was searched after he got into the back seat of an occupied car that parked in
front of a house known for drug sales. This is sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s
finding defendant had the intent to sell the methamphetamine in December 2020 and the
heroin in September 2021.
C
The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence Demonstrating Defendant Possessed A Large
Quantity Of Drugs During The December 2020 And September 2021 Searches
Defendant contends insufficient evidence supports the jury’s true findings he
possessed a large quantity of methamphetamine during the December 2020 search
(counts 22 & 23), as well as a large quantity of heroin during the September 2021 search
(count 44). The People argue defendant forfeited this claim by failing to object at
sentencing and, in any event, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s
findings that defendant possessed a large quantity of methamphetamine in December
2020 and heroin in September 2021. We conclude defendant did not forfeit his claims
and the aggravating circumstances lack sufficient support.
As to forfeiture, an objection is generally required to challenge on appeal a trial
court’s reliance on an improper factor in imposing a sentence. (People v. Scott (1994)
9 Cal.4th 331, 353.) However, “[s]ufficiency of the evidence has always been viewed as
a question necessarily and inherently raised in every contested trial of any issue of fact,
and requiring no further steps by the aggrieved party to be preserved for appeal.”
(In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 660.) “Parties may generally challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because

9
they ‘necessarily objected’ to the sufficiency of the evidence by ‘contesting [it] at trial.’ ”
(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596.) Thus, defendant’s challenge is
preserved.
As to the merits, California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(10) provides a
circumstance in aggravation occurs when “[t]he crime involved a large quantity of
contraband.” Here, Detective Ridenour testified a single dose for an average drug user of
heroin or methamphetamine is 0.1 grams every seven hours. While the People
characterize defendant’s possession as large because it constituted 37 doses of
methamphetamine and 17 doses of heroin, both Detective Ridenour and Deputy Miyasato
characterized defendant’s possession of these quantities of contraband as well within the
common quantity possessed for an individual’s consumption. Indeed, defendant’s
possession of the heroin was in a common unit for individual street sale. Given the
experts’ testimony, the People’s argument that 17 and 37 doses of drugs constitute a large
quantity amounts to speculation. Because nothing in the record contextualized the
amount of methamphetamine defendant possessed in December 2020 (counts 22 & 23) or
the amount of heroin he possessed in September 2021 (count 44) as a large quantity of
drugs, insufficient evidence supports the aggravating circumstances attached to those
counts. Thus, they must be stricken and defendant’s upper term sentence on count 23
must be vacated.
Typically, “when part of a sentence is stricken on review, . . . ‘a full resentencing
as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in
light of the changed circumstances.’ ” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893.)
However, “[t]he record in this case demonstrates with unusual clarity that remand would
be an idle act.” (People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 432.) As an initial matter, we
note counts 22 and 44 were imposed consecutively as one-third the middle term
sentences, and thus the jury’s true findings had no effect on those punishments. As to
count 23, before sentencing defendant, the trial court said it found true three aggravating

10
circumstances for each drug count, justifying its decision to impose the middle term for
those counts and the upper term for the counts that had an additional jury finding in
aggravation. This makes clear the trial court’s intent to impose at least the middle term
for the possession of methamphetamine for sale conviction (count 23). Accordingly, we
modify the judgment to impose the middle term of two years (doubled to four years for
defendant’s strike conviction) for count 23.
II
Defendant’s Remaining Contentions Are Moot
The parties wish to modify the judgment by awarding defendant four additional
days of credit. After the opening brief was filed, however, the trial court corrected its
error and awarded defendant the 2,504 credits both parties contend he is due.
Defendant’s credit issue is thus moot.
The parties further agree the abstract of judgment contains multiple clerical errors.
Each one of the parties’ contentions has been addressed by the amended abstract of
judgment filed after the opening brief was filed. Defendant’s clerical error issue is thus
moot.

11
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to strike the upper term sentence for count 23 and
impose the middle term of 2 years doubled to four years for that count. The judgment is
affirmed as modified. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment and
forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
MAURO, J.

/s/
WISEMAN, J.*

• Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

12